Joseph Sarandos
Head Administrator
Global user
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
About the so-called "Deadbeat Dads" Program
With great sympathy for you mothers (or fathers) who are owed, but do not receive Child Support payments from your absent spouses, let me explain that the so-called "Deadbeat Dad" program was not put into place for your benefit, although many of you have benefited (to varying degrees) as a side-effect of it.
The primary reason behind that program was to recover Federal monies that the States and Counties had not previously charged to the biological fathers, in such cases that Child Protective Services had snatched (especially "highly adoptable") children from young, never-married mothers.
For many years previous to this program, the Counties (with the States' blessing) made no attempts whatever to identify and locate the "boyfriends" who'd impregnated the young girls. The reason for this was/is to keep the fathers and their parents "out of the picture" for purposes of determining placement of the babies.
In other words, the term "Father unknown" assured that the children would be placed into non-relative foster or fost/adopt homes.
However, because the Laws hold the biological parents financially responsible for whatever amounts of money that are spent by the system in protecting their children against either or both of them, the Fed eventually got around to hatching the so-called "Deadbeat Dad" program, under which program the Counties and States finally get around to identifying, locating and billing the previously "unknown" fathers.
But of course, the Counties and States have to spend money in finding such fathers, and so the Fed allows them to keep 5% of all monies that they actually recover from such fathers.
And of course, such fathers become equally indebted with the mothers, to the Federal Government, for the total amounts of money that had been expended by the Counties and States in the process of "protecting their children".
These are not only "lifetime debts," but they extend to the estates of the debtors, and eventually to the heirs of such debtors, which heirs happen to be the very same children who had been "protected".
Sad, but true.
|
|
3/29/2006, 9:50 am
|
Send Email to Joseph Sarandos
Send PM to Joseph Sarandos
|
