Republican Senator Introduces Federal Legislation To Increase Child Support Payments And Ties It To Federal Title IV-D Incentives.

Republican Senator Introduces Federal Legislation To Increase Child Support Payments And Ties It To Federal Title IV-D Incentives.

Populism has gained significant traction in the US and all over the world, really, primarily because it seeks to remedy complaints that the will of the People is being ignored by a condescending and self-serving political establishment.

It’s also an entirely rational response, because it’s clear that politicians have become far too accustomed to using people to accomplish their personal political ambitions instead of actually serving the people who voted for them.

And I gotta tell ya’ folks, and regardless of whether you’re a liberal or a conservative, it’s long past time to purge government of legislators who’ve seemed to lose sight of the simple truth that we don’t serve them; they serve us, and they do so at our pleasure.

For well over thirty years family law reform advocates have actively lobbied elected officials to abandon the existing adversarial structure of family law and replace it with a healthier one organized around equal shared parenting. We’ve asked for law that rewards cooperation instead of incentivizing conflict, treats non-custodial parents with respect, and prioritizes the health and well-being of families over and above the harvesting of money for custodial parents, the family court industry, and in the U.S., individual state governments that profit off the administration of child support pools.

Are The Populists Listening?

Indeed, we’ve had some recent successes in the U.S., with Kentucky passing law that requires a presumption of equal shared parenting in family court, and with Iowa needing only the governor’s signature to follow suit. So, are the populists on board with our reform goals?

Well, it seems Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) isn’t.

To wit, I offer you the Child Support Works Act, Federal legislation he drafted and submitted in December of 2020 that amends Title IV, Part D, Section 458 of the Social Security Act (you can learn more about Title IV-D incentives by clicking here) to reward states for implementing mandatory work programs that, in his words “have proven effective at helping non-custodial parents develop positive work ethics and fulfill the requirements of their child-support orders.”

Quoting directly from his press release:

“Fathers have an obligation to care for their children. Child-support orders can help parents fulfill this obligation by requiring them to work. This bill would provide additional resources to state child-support agencies so they can help parents get back on their feet and provide for their family.” 

Three Important Observations About This Absolutely Terrible Legislation:

First, did you notice first word in the above quote? Yep – he’s specifically targeting (and smearing) fathers with this legislation.

Secondly, the very notion of tying mandatory work programs to federal incentives that already encourage states to minimize non-custodial parenting time and assign un-affordable child support orders is beyond ludicrous. This amendment, is in short, just more government abuse waiting to happen.

Thirdly, this legislation and the way he’s characterized it is just patently offensive and insulting; not just to fathers, but to all the non-custodial parents who are literally bankrupting themselves trying to remain in a meaningful presence in the lives of their children.

He is essentially saying: “The only value non-custodial parents hold for their children is to supply the custodial parent with money. Other than that, they’re just not relevant.”

A Familiar Pattern…

It turns out, Tom Cotton, the populist, is nothing new.

Aside from the historically predictable go-to political move of throwing non-custodial parents (and fathers in particular) under the bus, and aside from completely ignoring every positive and healthy reform to family law that is not only needed, but is also polling heavily in our favor (an average of state and national polls indicates a greater than 80% favorabililty for shared parenting), he’s decided to pile additional incentives into the snake’s den that’s the Federal Title IV-D bonus and incentives program.

It’s hard to imagine this legislation just came to Cotton from on high, and I seriously doubt that it has. The truth is, equal shared parenting law encourages parental cooperation and largely removes conflicts over child custody, and this will cost the family court industry a fortune.

So, I offer for your consideration, Cotton’s donor information (2015-2020) as reported by

Yep, you’re reading that correctly. Senator Cotton has taken in nearly $800k from law firms over the last five years, ranking them fifth on his donor list. Knowing this, and also knowing that his bill was also supported by the National Child Support Enforcement Association, are you truly surprised that he would seek to paint himself as a populist while preserving and enhancing the status quo?

Non-custodial parents should expect fair, respectful, and decent treatment from government, and our children need and deserve both parents to have an active and meaningful role in their lives. Politicians like Tom Cotton are still not giving us that.

The Lesson?

To be frank, I seriously wrestled with writing this article at all, because talking about anything to do with politics is tricky. Folks can have a tendency to erroneously conclude that criticism of their party or candidate is both a criticism of them personally and an implicit endorsement of the other side.

That’s not what this post is trying to accomplish, and I’m not asking you or anyone else to change your political beliefs or vote for a candidate, party, or policy that you don’t agree with.

Populism undoubtedly has tremendous potential to affect great changes with respect how government treats people. The lesson here, though, is that neither side’s hands are clean when it comes to callus and oppressive family law that uses and exploits parents for political and financial gain.

It’s perfectly okay to aggressively to stand up for party and oppose the arguments and views of political opponents, but we also have to ensure that the people we voted for respect our vote, and that means holding them accountable when they fail to listen to us or abuse our trust.

If populism is going to work to achieve our goals, we need to take our power back and we need to use it, even if that means calling out the people and the party we voted for, because otherwise, we’ll find ourselves being governed by a bunch of Tom Cottons who’ll tell us anything we want to hear without any concern for being held accountable to the people who voted for him; which obviously, flies directly in the face of what populism is supposed to accomplish.

Sending a clear message to your elected officials that says, “Just a reminder that you that work for me, and not your lobbyists. I like most of what you’re doing, but your stance on family law is unacceptable. This issue is important to me, so if you don’t work for better policy, policy that I want, I’m okay with finding someone else who will.” ….not only forces politicians to respect you, but shows that YOU respect the power of your vote and the trust it entails.

Suffice to say, I hope that at the very least, the good people of Arkansas will have a frank discussion with Senator Cotton (Contact Tom Cotton).

~ Michael

Note: In the U.S., you may find the contact info for your state and federal legislators at

Family Law Reform: Blame-Shifting, Victim-Shaming, and Deception.


Last year, I was having a discussion with a woman I know who was having an on-going custody and child support dispute with the father of her children.

Just to lay the groundwork, the father gets 4 hours visitation on Sunday afternoons every two weeks and, he gets to walk his child from her mother’s car to the school door every Friday.

I inquired, “That’s crazy. Why so little time?”

She responded, “That’s what the judge gave him. He has to show the judge he deserves more.”

I responded, “What does the judge have to do with it?  No judge is going to complain if you voluntarily give your child more time with her father.”

Her response, “I have to follow court orders.”

Note: There are no issues with this family that might require supervised parenting, etc . The father simply could not afford an attorney.


Yesterday, I posted an article to our Facebook page published by Real Clear Politics titled, “Of 27 Deadliest Mass Shooters, 26 of Them Were Fatherless.”

And these are some of the responses we received:

“Wow Love and Iron…..just wow!

I agree the sentiment behind abolishing parental alienation…..BUT to use this? Disgusting!

Did it ever occur to you…..that the fathers abandoned them? Is that ever a possibility with you? Do men NEVER do that? To be taken more seriously you need to acknowledge and separate the fathers….not combine them! Foolish!

“Take a poll!

How many members are actual fathers……and how many are stepmothers following this page?”

“MANY men WALK AWAY on their own or have 2nd lives. Ya may want to do better research.”

“AMEN!! I’m sick.of it!!! Actually….MORE MOTHERS LIMIT KIDS’ TIME ON GAMES also!! We provide the continuety of care and KNOW it causes lack of empathy!!”

So In The Interests of Candor and Credibility, Let’s Lay Out Some Facts.

There is no doubt that the existing model for litigating custody in family court was influenced in part, by societal constructs that existed fifty years ago in which a far greater number of mothers stayed at home with children.

However, a research study conducted in 2015 by the Pew Research center found that dads are just as likely as moms to say that parenting is extremely important to their identity; some 57% of fathers compared to 58% of mothers – a statistical dead heat. In addition, it’s worth noting the study also found that most fathers believe they should be spending more time with their children, but, they also feel pressured to prioritize work and bread-winning over spending time with their kids.

Still, according to a 2016 census report, the percentage of custodial parents who are fathers rose by a mere 2.7% from 16.9% in 1994 to 19.6% in 2016.  In other words, 80% of custodial parents remain mothers.

Understand the Incentives, Understand the Problem:

Much of current custody and child support enforcement law was inspired by sociologist Dr. Lenore Weitzman (a professor of women’s studies), who in a 1985 research report, claimed the standard of living for women declined by an average of 73% after divorce.

The math in that report was later exposed by sociologists and economists to be grossly inaccurate and misleading (some even claimed blatantly fraudulent), and yet, little has been done to remedy the damage done by the political reaction to it.  In fact, the bizarre response to these revelations was to institute Federal Title IV-D bonuses and financial incentives that reward states for creating absent parents so they can maximize, collect, enforce, and administer child support payment pools.

Follow the money, and you’ll find the truth.

If a custodial parent wants to enforce a custody order, he or she can engage a state attorney and bring the full force of state law enforcement upon the non-custodial parent.

On the other hand, if a non-custodial parent wants to enforce a custody order, he or she must hire their own attorney, incur expenses over and above child support and alimony obligations; and do so with the understanding that any substantive enforcement remedies will be both meager and unlikely.

The short story version is: absent parents are being manufactured to harvest money for states, for custodial parents, and for the family court industry.

More specifically, given that mothers are awarded custody 80% of time, and, that child support orders are incentivized and enforced while custody orders are not; it should be apparent that child support and custody law is merely socioeconomic policy intended to redistribute income and other lifestyle benefits from fathers (men) to mothers (women), and in order to make this work, absent parents (80% of which are fathers) need to be created.

The Research Speaks, The False Narrative Begins.

Starting in the mid 1990’s and since, a great deal of research has been done to explore the effect these absent fathers were having on children. And much to the chagrin of many feminist groups, numerous studies about children raised in fatherless households have revealed:

  • A greater likelihood to experience problems with self-esteem and self-confidence.
  • More difficulties with social adjustment.
  • 71% of high school dropouts are fatherless.
  • 85% of youth in prison have an absent father.
  • A greater likelihood of teen pregnancy.
  • A greater likelihood to abuse drugs and alcohol.
  • 90% of runaway children have an absent father.
  • At greater risk for suffering physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
  • Children of absent fathers are over-represented in a range of mental health issues, especially anxiety, depression, and suicide.

Of course, this created a problem.

How can Government continue it’s socioeconomic policy, and how can states preserve federal funding revenue if they award more parenting time to fathers?

Well, when you can’t claim innocence, blame the victim.

We still have is a legal system that remains purposefully engineered to create absent fathers and then proceeds to shame them for being absent, even as these dads are bankrupting themselves (mentally, emotionally, and financially) to remain in the lives of their children.

We’re not denying there are fathers who abandon their children, and we have just as much contempt for them as we do alienating parents.

We’ve also said that ninety percent of the pathology built into family law can be corrected by a simple switch to the presumption of 50/50 custody after divorce that is accompanied by the equal and rational enforcement of both custody and child support orders.

However, changes to law aside, and just like conversation with the woman I used to open this blog article, we do have the freedom to make our own personal choices – even today.

If we really care about children, we’ll stop incentivizing the absence of fathers, stop the campaigns of deceit, start treating parental alienation with the seriousness it deserves, and actually act as if this is true.


Family Law Reform: Sometimes People Want You To Think It’s About Others, When It’s Really About Them.


I was reminded of the thought expressed in the title to this post the other day, which provoked me to update some older posts that decomposed and explained Title IV-D bonuses and incentives to states (Federal Title IV-D funds are bonuses and incentives paid to states for maximizing, collecting, enforcing, and administering child support payments).

Certainly the incentive pool portion of Federal Title IV-D program is sizable; $500 million annually split up between states and territories. But, let’s not get hung up on that.

California, for example, received $490 million in Federal Title IV-D bonuses and reimbursements in 2012 (the last year any data was published).

Now, let’s consider the question: What would the presumption of 50/50 parenting after divorce mean to California?

Well, it’s plausible it’ll mean a dramatic reduction in both parental conflict and child support pools to administer, which in turn means funding will dry up, which also means you’ll have a whole lot of government lawyers, support staff, and bureaucrats sitting around with nothing to do and and no federal funding to pay them.

Recently, we’ve been beating the drum that we have to abandon any notion that moral appeals will sway legislators to do the right thing for parents and children.  Granted, when you see the harm done by existing family law, and especially to children, one should expect moral arguments to be persuasive, but after twenty years of trying, it’s clear they are falling on deaf ears.

The short story version: Courts are ordering absent parents (and harming children) so they can use noncustodial parents to fund a system that pays government to create absent parents for money.

That’s some beautiful, circular, self serving logic; and all the while, they have to gall to shame non-custodial parents for being absent even as these NCP’s are bankrupting themselves by fighting to stay in the lives of their children.






Apparently, Noncustodial Parents Need To Be Encouraged To “Visit” With Their Children.



Recently, I was updating our breakdown of Title IV-D incentive payments to states, and I came across this little gem in a 2012 budget request from the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families for title IV-D funding.

This is on page 278 (source

“Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative

The CSE program plays an important role in facilitating family self-sufficiency and promoting responsible fatherhood.  Building on this role, the FY 2012 budget includes a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives.  

Ensuring that when non-custodial parents do the right thing and pay child support, their children benefit.  The proposal includes $1 billion over eight years (FY 2014 – 2021) to encourage states to pass through the current child support collections they receive on behalf of TANF families to the families, rather than retaining those payments.  The proposal would no longer require states to reimburse the Federal government for any part of the current child support payment that the state chooses to distribute to the family, estimated to cost $543 million during the eight-year period.  To encourage states to take up this policy, the proposal also includes a short-term five-year pool of funds to offset a significant share of states’ costs in implementing this policy, estimated to cost $454 million between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

The proposal also requires that the child support payments made on behalf of children in foster care are used in the best interest of the child, rather than as general revenue ($370 million) and prohibits the use of child support to repay Medicaid costs associated with giving birth from fathers—a practice that is currently used only by a small number of states.  Recovery of this debt from noncustodial parents can discourage the participation of pregnant in Medicaid and reduce child support payments to the family ($70 million).  In addition, the proposal grants states additional flexibility to discontinue the requirement that child support payments be assigned to the state when a family receives TANF assistance ($122 million), and provides limited resources to help states makes the necessary adjustments to their computer systems ($100 million).  Taken together, these policy changes are estimated to result in an additional $1.9 billion in child support payments reaching the children the payments were intended to support.

Promoting Access and Visitation.  The budget provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program.  The first step in facilitating a relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is updating the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children.  The proposal also requires states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders.  The proposal also would encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation.  Implementing domestic violence safeguards is a critical component of this new state responsibility.  These services not only will improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but they also will result in improved collections.  Research shows that when fathers are engaged in the lives of their children, they are more likely to meet their financial obligations.  This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.”

Let us count the insults:

  • The “fatherhood initiative” is intended to encourage >>non-custodial parents<< to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives. Last I checked, noncustodial mothers have a child support delinquency rate almost double that of fathers.
  • Apparently, it is a fact that child support payments directly pass through as benefits to children.
  • The Department was asking for $570 million over ten years to support increased access to “visitation”.  Wow, that’s awesome. Out of a $4 billion dollar annual Title IV-D budget, the Department was asking for an additional $57MM per year to encourage non-custodial parents to “visit” with their children (14% of the enforcement budget and $1.1MM per state) because higher involvement by non-custodial parents is correlated to lower child support delinquencies.
  • Oh, but then we also have the obligatory VAWA and “best interests” disclaimers.
  • It is also worth noting that the initiative is intended to “encourage” non-custodial involvement. Not a peep is mentioned about the enforcement of custody orders.

So, the Feds dangled a little extra gravy out there for noncustodial parents (er, I mean fathers) so they’ll “visit” with their children, and what do you know, all of a sudden, states start looking at shared parenting bills that dangle a little extra parenting time for non-custodial parents, while still preserving conditions that maximize and administer child support payments for Title IVD bonuses.

I’ll tell you what U.S. Government. I don’t need “encouragement” to see my children.

In fact, I’m trying to get laws changed so that Government will get out of my way and let me actually do it.




Family Law Reform: The Ugly Truth About Why States Don’t Want The Presumption Of 50/50 Parenting After Divorce


Note: This is an updated consolidation of two posts made in August/September 2012.

Way back in 2012,  we were having a discussion where I was asserting that states can receive anywhere from $1 to $2 in Federal subsidy payments for every dollar they collect and administer in child support payments.  And it was during this discussion that one of our members asked the simple question, “Do you have any documentation on this?”.

There Is A Bunch Of Convoluted Government Math In This Post If You Want To Run Through The Methodology Of How Stuff Is Calculated, But Here Is The Short Story Version.

Administering child support payments is big business for states:

(1) States get reimbursed for 66% of the hard costs of collecting and administering child support.

(2) States receive bonus funds for the reimbursement of welfare programs using a formula consistent with Federal medical program reimbursements.

(3) States get bonus funds from a shared incentive pool, in which those incentives are driven by the nominal amount of child support collected and the performance in collecting it. In other words, states are incentivized to (a) maximize the amount of child support funds they administer, and (b) maximize the efficiency with which they collect it.

There are three revenue sources for States associated with the collection and administration of child support payments defined under the broad cover of the Social Security Act:

(1) 66% reimbursement for allowable expenditures, which are:

a. Costs for locating parents
b. Costs for establishing orders
c. Costs for collecting child support payments
d. Costs for establishing paternity
e. Any other misc. costs approved by the Secretary for reimbursement.
f.  And exception of 90% matching for the following two expenditures
i.  Improving management information systems
ii. Blood testing

(2) Welfare recovery and matching:

a. Recovered TANF payments are split between the Federal Government and States consistent with Federal reimbursement of medical benefits (I’m still not clear about exactly how this part works in practice.)

(3) Incentive pool (Public Law 105-200, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1988 ( enacted July 16, 1998 ).

With the incentive pool, states must compete for their share of the funds, which we estimate is currently, is around $491MM.

A. The incentive amount = State Incentive Pool (x) State Incentive Share

B. State Incentive Share = Incentive Base Amount For The State (/) Sum of Incentive Base Amounts For All States

C. Incentive Base Amount = Sum Of Applicable Percentages {defined by paragraph 6 of the Act} (x) Corresponding Maximum Incentive Base Amounts for each bonus category:
Bonus Categories Are:

A. Paternity Establishment Performance Level
B. Support Order Performance Level
C. Current Payment Performance Level
D. Arrearage Performance Level
E. Cost Effectiveness Performance Level

D. Maximum Incentive Base Amount = State Collections Base (as measured in performance categories A,B,C) + 75% state collections base ( performance categories D, E).

E. State Collections Base = Sum ( 2 (x) amount collected in which support is assigned to the State (bonus categories A or E), amount of support collected that was at the time of collection, not required to be assigned), total amount of support collected).

Current data for total Title V-D expenditures is currently unavailable. The last published data (2012) was $3.977 billion.

Title IV-D Reimbursements and Incentives Allocated To States (2012):

Title IV-D % Fed Visitation % Fed
Grants Rel
State $ Received Budget $ Grants Budget To Title IVD
California $490,125,776 12.32% $946,820 9.35% 0.19%
Texas $301,348,139 7.58% $702,147 6.94% 0.23%
New York $266,750,195 6.71% $545,183 5.39% 0.20%
Ohio $243,766,906 6.13% $346,015 3.42% 0.14%
Florida $212,471,610 5.34% $502,438 4.96% 0.24%
Michigan $179,977,527 4.53% $284,554 2.81% 0.16%
New Jersey $170,208,617 4.28% $212,190 2.10% 0.12%
Pennsylvania $150,486,866 3.78% $344,452 3.40% 0.23%
Illinois $125,814,504 3.16% $192,761 1.90% 0.15%
Washington $110,001,353 2.77% $176,274 1.74% 0.16%
Minnesota $106,643,740 2.68% $133,346 1.32% 0.13%
North Carolina $87,725,394 2.21% $279,933 2.77% 0.32%
Maryland $86,096,363 2.16% $160,674 1.59% 0.19%
Georgia $80,546,707 2.03% $295,483 2.92% 0.37%
Wisconsin $75,158,881 1.89% $152,034 1.50% 0.20%
Arizona $74,147,529 1.86% $172,676 1.71% 0.23%
Virginia $70,223,005 1.77% $207,182 2.05% 0.30%
Louisiana $68,945,314 1.73% $145,278 1.44% 0.21%
Missouri $65,754,372 1.65% $169,898 1.68% 0.26%
Kentucky $63,591,310 1.60% $123,634 1.22% 0.19%
Indiana $60,985,048 1.53% $100,000 0.99% 0.16%
Oklahoma $54,640,040 1.37% $103,930 1.03% 0.19%
Massachusetts $51,039,687 1.28% $171,813 1.70% 0.34%
Iowa $49,973,434 1.26% $123,634 1.22% 0.25%
Tennessee $49,377,836 1.24% $181,834 1.80% 0.37%
Oregon $46,717,248 1.17% $100,000 0.99% 0.21%
Colorado $44,275,072 1.11% $121,309 1.20% 0.27%
Connecticut $43,172,897 1.09% $100,000 0.99% 0.23%
Alabama $42,222,415 1.06% $137,856 1.36% 0.33%
Indian Tribes $42,000,000 1.06% $100,000 0.99% 0.24%
Kansas $39,126,333 0.98% $100,000 0.99% 0.26%
Nevada $37,536,710 0.94% $100,000 0.99% 0.27%
South Carolina $32,976,075 0.83% $136,311 1.35% 0.41%
Mississippi $32,474,920 0.82% $107,089 1.06% 0.33%
Utah $27,533,598 0.69% $100,000 0.99% 0.36%
New Mexico $27,209,782 0.68% $100,000 0.99% 0.37%
West Virginia $26,634,714 0.67% $100,000 0.99% 0.38%
Nebraska $25,263,754 0.64% $100,000 0.99% 0.40%
Delaware $23,737,900 0.60% $100,000 0.99% 0.42%
Puerto Rico $22,709,422 0.57% $100,000 0.99% 0.44%
Maine $18,090,754 0.45% $100,000 0.99% 0.55%
Idaho $17,506,554 0.44% $346,886 3.43% 1.98%
District of Columbia $16,855,375 0.42% $100,000 0.99% 0.59%
Arkansas $16,377,999 0.41% $100,000 0.99% 0.61%
Hawaii $15,469,849 0.39% $100,000 0.99% 0.65%
Alaska $15,385,076 0.39% $100,000 0.99% 0.65%
North Dakota $12,662,484 0.32% $100,000 0.99% 0.79%
New Hampsire $12,028,516 0.30% $100,000 0.99% 0.83%
Montana $9,835,041 0.25% $100,000 0.99% 1.02%
Vermont $9,016,968 0.23% $100,000 0.99% 1.11%
South Dakota $7,296,020 0.18% $100,000 0.99% 1.37%
Rhode Island $6,452,335 0.16% $100,000 0.99% 1.55%
Wyoming $4,016,126 0.10% $100,000 0.99% 2.49%
Virgin Islands $3,664,589 0.09% $100,000 0.99% 2.73%
Guam $2,986,321 0.08% $100,000 0.99% 3.35%
Total $3,977,035,000 $10,123,634


Access and Visitation Grants:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) created the Access and Visitation Grants program.  Funding for the program began in FY 1997 with a capped entitlement of $10 million.

Each governor designated a state agency which uses these grant funds to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children.

The statute specifies certain activities which may be funded including:  voluntary and mandatory mediation, counseling, education, the development of parenting plans, supervised visitation, neutral drop-off and pick-up, and the development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.  This funding is separate from funding for federal and state administration of the CSE program.

Incentive Payments to States:

“While the federal government provides most of its funding for the child support program through matching payments to reimburse states for their expenditures for allowable expenses, it also makes incentive payments to reward states for strong performance on a range of measures, such as cost-effectiveness. Section 458(f) of the Social Security Act allows states to use their incentive payments to either “carry out the State plan” or “for any activity (including cost-effective contracts with local agencies) approved by the Secretary, whether or not the expenditures for the activity are eligible for reimbursement under this part, which may contribute to improving the effectiveness or efficiency of the State program operated under this part.”

~ Source: Office of Child Support Enforcement

(1) IN GENERAL- The incentive payment for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year, multiplied by the State incentive payment share for the fiscal year.


(A) IN GENERAL- In paragraph (1), the term `incentive payment pool’ means–

(i) $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

(ii) $429,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;

(iii) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;

(iv) $461,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

(v) $454,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

(vi) $446,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

(vii) $458,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;

(viii) $471,000,000 for fiscal year 2007;

(ix) $483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(x) $496,000,000 for fiscal year 2009*;

(xi) $490,000,000 for fiscal year 2010*;

(xii) $496,000,000 for fiscal year 2011*;

(xiii) $490,000,000 for fiscal year 2012*;

(xiv)$490,000,000 for fiscal year 2013*;

(xv) $486,000,000 for fiscal year 2014*;

(xvi) $490,000,000 for fiscal year 2015*;

(xvii) $492,000,000 for fiscal year 2016*;

(xviii) $492,000,000 for fiscal year 2017*;

(xix) $491,000,000 for fiscal year 2018*;


* Data after 2008 for incentive pools is unavailable, so these are estimates using the government formula for establishing the incentive pool: for any succeeding fiscal year, the amount of the incentive payment pool for the fiscal year that precedes such succeeding fiscal year, multiplied by the percentage (if any) by which the CPI for such preceding fiscal year exceeds the CPI for the second preceding fiscal year.

(B) CPI- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the CPI for a fiscal year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period ending on September 30 of the fiscal year. As used in the preceding sentence, the term `Consumer Price Index’ means the last Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor. (Note: the government uses an average cpi figure from sept-sept; we’ve used the typical published values from dec-dec. This may create a small discrepancy with the estimates, but it should not be significant)

(3) STATE INCENTIVE PAYMENT SHARE- In paragraph (1), the term `State incentive payment share’ means, with respect to a fiscal year–

(A) the incentive base amount for the State for the fiscal year; divided by

(B) the sum of the incentive base amounts for all of the States for the fiscal year.

Now, here’s where it gets important, because this is where the base value figures are established:

(4) INCENTIVE BASE AMOUNT- In paragraph (3), the term incentive base amount’ means, with respect to a State and a fiscal year, the sum of the applicable percentages (determined in accordance with paragraph (6)) multiplied by the corresponding maximum incentive base amounts for the State for the fiscal year, with respect to each of the following measures of State performance for the fiscal year:


(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of paragraph (4), the maximum incentive base amount for a State for a fiscal year is–

(i) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (4), the State collections base for the fiscal year; and

(ii) with respect to the performance measures described in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of paragraph (4), 75 percent of the State collections base for the fiscal year.

Skipping some stuff here…

(C) STATE COLLECTIONS BASE- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the State collections base for a fiscal year is equal to the sum of–

(i) 2 times the sum of–

(I) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved is required to be assigned to the State pursuant to part A or E of this title or title XIX; and

(II) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in cases in which the support obligation involved was so assigned but, at the time of collection, is not required to be so assigned; and

(ii) the total amount of support collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part in all other cases.

(A) The paternity establishment performance level.

(B) The support order performance level.

(C) The current payment performance level.

(D) The arrearage payment performance level.

(E) The cost-effectiveness performance level.

**So, you can see two important things here.

First, the reimbursements, payments, and bonuses are NOT determined by a reimbursement of State expenses incurred. In fact, the minimization of State Collection Costs is a bonus item.

Secondly, and this is really important, the figures used are the child support funds that States have under administration.

And here is something interesting. Check this out:

(c) TREATMENT OF INTERSTATE COLLECTIONS- In computing incentive payments under this section, support which is collected by a State at the request of another State shall be treated as having been collected in full by both States, and any amounts expended by a State in carrying out a special project assisted under section 455(e) shall be excluded.

***i.e. If two States are working together to collect funds, they both get credit for the purposes of establishing bonuses – this is pure gravy.

Note a couple of things here.

First, the bonus values are doubled for the categories of paternity test performance and cost performance.

So why would the Feds care about State costs? Because this is the bonus and incentive program, and States already receive a 66% dollar for dollar reimbursement for administrative costs (and I’m not sure, I’ll have to check, but i think there is a way they can finagle the remaining 34% to get even dollar for dollar match) under a different section of the Social Security Act.

So, In Summary:

States can get up to 100% reimbursement for administrative costs plus up to two times the bonus pool share for two categories along with the rest of it.

Now add to this, the fact that Courts often charge fees for posting these certified payments, and may assess additional fees and fines for enforcement, and you’ve got a very lucrative incentive for States and Courts to maximize child support payments.

Think of it is a pie. The objective for each state is to maximize their share of the pie (incentive base amounts relative to other states). And in this regard, you’ll note that the Fed’s apply a 25% penalty to the maximum incentive base amounts for two categories: (1) Support collected in arrears, and (2) Support Costs.

Secondly, you’ll note that the Fed’s place double the weight of state administered child support payments assigned to the State for collection; either by order or agreement.

So, with respect to incentive pools:

(1) An incentive to maximize the amount of child support ordered.
(2) An incentive to maximize the amount of child support collected.
(3) An incentive to avoid high collection costs.
(4) An incentive to assign collections to the state for administration.
(5) A penalty to incentive base amounts for child support amounts in arrears.

In other words, the name of the game here for states is to generate the biggest number possible (incentive base amount) constrained by the maximum incentive base amount. Once these numbers are in for the year, shares are created and the pie is split up.

Note: We would like to get current data. More specifically, we’d like to the Federal Government to post its expenditures on an annual basis.

We’d also like to get an accounting from states as to how they spend the incentive money they receive.

We’ll keep plugging away at the problem….

Caution: Shared Parenting May Not Be What You Think It Is.


Is shared parenting legislation a win?

Sadly, probably not.

In truth, it’s mostly political deception intended to manufacture the appearance of change, when in fact, there is nothing that is substantively different from existing law.

To test for yourself if this statement is true, ask yourself a few questions about your proposed or existing shared parenting law:

  • Does it enable an environment of conflict?
  • Does it provide for the presumption of 50/50 custody?
  • Is there a financial incentive to minimize or eliminate noncustodial parenting time?
  • Is the problem of parental alienation addressed with the legislation?
  • Are there reforms to the enforcement of child support orders?
  • Are there reforms to the enforcement of custody orders?
  • Are there measures to remedy false allegations of abuse made during custody proceedings?

Probably, not. Mostly likely, there are “guidelines” judges are encouraged to honor with the intention of providing noncustodial parents with more parenting time, but the legal environment is not substantively different.

Politicians are still legislating unequal custody divisions, presumably to preserve their Federal Title IVD revenue streams, and, the nebulous and overly broad “best interests of the children” doctrine is still the dominate feature of law; meaning that at the end of the day, judges are free to do whatever they want, just as they are now.

To put this in perspective, ask yourself two more questions: (1) Under existing law, are judges free to award 50/50 custody, and (2) Are they doing it?

These bills are largely theater.

With our recent open letter to legislators, we noted a few sensible features that are necessary for healthy family law.  Most notably:

  • Prioritize the interests of children above the interests of those who seek to profit because of them.
  • Recalibrate the legal environment to encourage and reward cooperation, not conflict.
  • Recognize the relationship value of both parents to children, and move the reference point to a presumption of 50/50 custody.
  • Assign equal importance and the rational enforcement of both child support and custody orders.
  • Child support and custody orders should reflect the needs of the children, and not the lifestyle demands of the custodial parent.
  • Provide judges with resources and remedies to quickly and credibly identify legitimate instances of abuse and fraudulent allegations of it.
  • Recognize that parental alienation is a form of child abuse, and should be treated with the seriousness it deserves.

The truth about the substance of shared parenting bills moving through various legislators at the moment is they are still 100 percent about the stimulation of conflict and the creation of absent parents for money, and they continue to leave the problems of parental alienation and false allegations untouched.

In a recent blog post, we talked about what’s been missing from the family law reform effort, and what’s needed to put an end to the political gaming and motivate legislators to make substantive and healthier reforms to family law, and within that spirit, we’re making some changes here at The Love and Iron Project as well.

We’ve been more than patient, and in the end, what were getting from politicians are manipulations that, quite frankly, assume we’re too dumb to understand what they’re really up to.

We’re not fooled, and we’re not stupid.  In fact, it’s long past time to put an end to all this nonsense, and it doesn’t matter if they’ve just passed new legislation this year; that’s not our problem. We’ve been letting them know for the last twenty years what’s needed, and if they have to turn around rework what they’ve just passed, well, too bad.



Loving With Letters – Celia

This case is both difficult to read, but also amazing.

It is a reminder that even that when dealing with Parental Alienation, False Allegations, and the Family Court, there is hope.

I met my (now) husband when I was 28.

He has three children from a previous marriage. Shortly after being married for one year he decided to file modification of custody papers to his ex-wife. He was tired of her constantly moving. Less than four hours after receiving the paperwork she called the Hillsborough County sheriff’s office and told them we had sexually molested the kids.

Her new Mother-in-law had used this excuse in the past with an ex-boyfriend. The sheriff’s office investigated the allegations and found them to be false after contacting my husband for his permission to have the kids checked out because his ex-wife would not give them permission. When the ex-wife found out that the case was dropped she then took it to the Pasco County sheriff’s office.

They contacted the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and found out the whole deal. They refused to pick it up and then the ex-wife decided to go to the Zephyrhills Police Department. This all happened within a space of eight months.

We have not had contact with a children since the papers were filed. We finally got a court date. The ex-wife’s new husband was sitting outside the courtroom across from me. He began yelling about how he couldn’t believe that we could do that sort of thing and take video of it. Since we weren’t biological family we weren’t allowed in the court room. My husband was given one hour a week supervised visitation at the courthouse.

The ex-wife did not like this.

She would tell the kids that if they went to see their dad that meant they didn’t love her anymore. Before that court date She filed a sexual battery injunction against me and my husband. We wound up going to court over that and the judge put in a stay because she wanted to see what she could do.

During our second court date for that the judge told my husband’s ex- wife that if it had been up to her she would be put underneath the jail and have her parental rights stripped. The only thing this judge could do though was put a letter of recommendation into our file to order the ex-wife to give us visitation back. That didn’t happen.

During this time we were going back and forth with court dates and filing paperwork. I found online information on Parental alienation syndrome. My husband’s ex-wife showed the classic case of Pas. Unfortunately at the time the State of Florida did not recognize this as being an actual thing. For six years we would go to court and during those six years I was filing contempt of court papers every other week. The judge we had for the injunction recommended that I do that every time we were supposed to see the kids and we’re allowed to.

About 4 years later my husband’s ex brother-in-law wound up getting our oldest son once or twice a month. He would call us up and let us know that he was there and we could come see him if we wanted to. Our son informed us that his mom had told him and his brothers that we had left the state of Florida because we didn’t want anything to do with them anymore. We got to see our oldest son a couple months like this.

One day my husband’s ex mother in law contacted us letting him know that her poor daughter was in the hospital. She had a seizure. (Truthfully she had almost died from an overdose). This was about six years into the whole ordeal. We went to see her and she asked for forgiveness and asked if we knew of a place she could rent. We happen to have a place right next door to us that was available. My husband rented it to her in lieu of Child Support.

She stayed there with our three boys and her two new kids from her new marriage. Then one day she just left. Our three kids came home from school and all of their mom’s stuff was gone. We were still going to court during this time. We had the three boys all summer and bought them everything they needed for the new school year. The day before school started their mom showed up at my house demanding that we give her kids back to her.

I told her no.

She hadn’t had anything to do with him in 3 months and I wasn’t just going to hand them over. This was in August and we finally got our final court date in September. My husband’s ex-wife didn’t show up to the court date and my husband asked if he could just change the agreement to 50/50. The judge told him there was no way she was going to do that and because she had also read up on Parental alienation syndrome she decided to award my husband full custody of his three kids.

The judge ordered his ex-wife to have a home study done and to take parenting classes before she was able to see the kids again. This was very difficult for me because the state of Florida doesn’t recognize step parents as having any rights. My marriage almost dissolved. We had the longest running custody battle in the history of the State of Florida and we also brought parental alienation syndrome to the Forefront. We were the first case to ever be recognized in Florida.

At the time there was only two or three cases in the United States that were actually recognized. We are now the number one. You can look it up as Monroe versus Monroe.

I never talk bad about my husband’s ex-wife in front of the kids. That was six years ago and now that they’re older they have read the Case Files and thank us for never giving up. I would recommend to anyone going through a custody battle or even having issues with a custodial parent to keep a journal. Take lots of pictures. This can be admitted into a court of law as your Personal Diary.

My husband and I also done this on our own. We didn’t have an attorney because we just couldn’t afford one at the time. We had an attorney for the sexual battery injunction and he was a good friend of my husband’s ex- wife’s attorney. We heard through the grapevine that the ex-wife’s attorney said he had never had a case where he was having his butt handed to him by two inbred hillbilly rednecks.

I’m writing all this just to give everyone hope. Don’t give up and even if things aren’t going your way right now eventually the truth will come out. Parental alienation syndrome is a real thing and it is detrimental to society. Read up on it and keep bringing it up in any court case. Make sure your judge reads it. We need to make this nationwide. We also need to make the courts recognize that step parents have rights too. If we can be investigated, then we should have a say in what happens in the court room.

If you have any questions you can contact me through my email

Celia Monroe

Zephyrhills, Florida


If you’d like to read letters from other members, just click the “Loving with Letters”  category link on the lower right-hand side of the site.

You can learn more about the Loving with Letters campaign by clicking here.