More ugly news for women "receiving" child support.

[BlueIris]

Or rather—not receiving it because the state takes a big, huge chunk out of it to "recoup" the "welfare" costs it expends to collect it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3085690

[ThomCat]

1. It was only a matter of time.

Any money that passes through any government agency will end up being kept by the government when there is enough financial pressure. They'll find reasons to implement fees and surcharges. The wealthy and powerful can exert a huge amount of pressure to make sure their money isn't taken, but single mothers don't have that kind of clout. :(

[Gormy Cuss]

2. It's been this way for decades, Thom.

I replied in the other two threads based on the same article. Direct payment to the state began back in the 1970s, as I recall. CSE did increase child support by noncustodial parents and lower welfare costs so it's a success in terms of program goals. The ultimate goal was to move children off welfare but that ran smack into the reality that many noncustodial parents didn't have the means to support their children as well as the assistance programs did, because the noncustodials themselves were extremely low income people.

The only issue now is whether the states and Feds recognize the value of allowing some of the child support to go directly to families without offset. It will never be the case that the government lets all of it go to the children's household because it creates an uneven support levels for some of those who depend on TANF --- children who have living, working noncustodials would have a higher standard of living than those who have a dead or permanently unemployable noncustodials. If TANF and other benefits were lavish, it wouldn't matter but as we all know they aren't.

In my post I outlined why IMHO I believe that a small pass through would be beneficial.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2383663&mesg_id=2383821