“Fair prejudices” held: Child support cases administered by the state ensure the neutral transfer of funds from one parent to the other.
Turns out I was absolutely wrong.
in part because the government uses fathers’ payments largely to recoup welfare costs rather than passing on the money to mothers and children. Close to half the states pass along none of collected child support to families on welfare, while most others pay only $50 a month to a custodial parent, usually the mother, even though the father may be paying hundreds of dollars each month.
Here’s the real world example:
Karla Hart, a struggling mother of four here, held out her monthly statement from the county child-support office.
Paid by the father: $229.40.
Amount deducted to repay federal costs of welfare: $132.18.
Her share: $97.22.
Then, what exactly is the point of state administered child support?
When Congress set up the current child support system in the 1970s, recovering welfare costs was an explicit goal, with some experts arguing that it was only fair for fathers to repay the government for sustaining their offspring and that giving families the money was a form of “double dipping.” But experience and research have suggested to most experts and state and federal officials from both parties that the policy is counterproductive — driving fathers into the underground economy and leaving families more dependent on aid
**Sigh, new “fair prejudice”: acknowledge that there is a price for everything and that there is always someone who foots the bill. And will look for a way to recoup their pay out.
*See original article: “Mothers scrimp as States take child support.”