This article runs 6 typewritten pages.
Hearings were held by the Interim Senate Committee on Juvenile Justice and Child Support on January 24, 1996 in Arlington, Tx. Edward Devine represented NCFM at the hearings.

Mr. Devine pointed out that following a two-year legislative session implementing (with few exceptions) an anti-male, anti-father agenda, the Texas juvenile crime rate soared another six (6%) percentage points. Fathers' and men's rights groups attended this hearing to address problems in the juvenile justice system and child support enforcement. At issue was the state's refusal to mandate parental notification of both parents when juveniles commit offenses. Also receiving a great deal of scrutiny was the Office of Attorney General (Dan Morales) and the public's perception of "selective enforcement" practices. Mr. Devine made the point that the office of the Attorney General routinely denies or ignores the requests of single fathers and non-custodial parents (primarily males) for services ranging from establishing paternity to enforcement of existing visitation orders.

Significant complaints were heard regarding:

1)- The Attorney General's continuing refusal to comply with the requirements of the Family Support Act (1988, Pub. L. No. 100-485) and subsequent agreements with the Federal Government dating from 1990. Said requirements address:

a)- How reviews of existing support orders are conducted.

b)- How child support orders are adjusted (or not adjusted) in accordance with the State's child support guidelines.

c)- The fact that the Attorney General's office ignores requirements that result in non-compliance with Federal mandates. This has caused millions of dollars in "ghost arrearages" being attributed to Texas' non-custodial parents. For example, obligors who are unaware that they could have their support order modified upon request will continue to accrue arrearages that are unwarrented by their present income.

...Steady employment is the most influential indicator of all variables in the study. Non-custodial parents with steady employment are more likely to pay all of their support. (page 19, Finding #1)

...Obligors who are behind on child support tend to have less steady employment, to be in lower-income occupations, and to have child support orders that are too high for their reported incomes. (page 24, Finding #7)

...Non-custodial parents supporting another family are more likely to have orders too high for their reported incomes. (page 26, Section C 1, first paragraph)

...Those who tried to get their orders modified felt that the Attorney General's office did not help them. (page 29, Section D 1, first paragraph)

...Non-custodial parents who have had their support orders modified to reflect present earning ability (through either additional litigation, or through court hearings resulting from arrearages) tend to be those who pay all of their support. (page 30, Finding #18, Section D 2)

3)- Another source of public acrimony was the practice of the Texas Attorney General's office of applying child support guidelines against disability checks, even though the federal government is already providing for the child as part of the person's disability. In other words, the father receives a check as the result of SSD (Social Security Disability), and the children receive a separate check because of the father's SSD, as support. Contrary to several appellate court rulings, the Texas Attorney General's office applies the full guideline to the MAN's disability check. Appeals courts have said that there should be an offset in the amount of the children's SSD payment.

While many in attendance were in favor of transferring responsibility for control of child support enforcement from control of the Attorney General's office, much of the support was for transferring this responsibility to third party companies engaged in private enterprise. It was NCFM's position that private enterprise should be barred from participating and that a separate agency should be created. The agency head would be appointed by the governor and the agency would be obligated to accept input from all interested parties. NCFM's main concern is to take child support collection out of politics. Under the current system the head of the Attorney General's Office, who handles child support, is elected.

Recent political grandstanding by Attorney General Dan Morales ** and representative testimony by the Attorney General's office at this hearing caused many Committee members to voice these same concerns.

FOOTNOTE:
**Despite boasts of miraculous improvements in Texas over an already very high compliance profile, the Attorney General's office, after contacting approximately 75,000 Texas residents and threatening them with drivers' license suspensions for child support arrearages, managed to net less than $24.00 per contact, after expenses. As these contacts were ostensibly the most critical AFDC cases, it remains to be seen how much, if any, of these funds will actually reach the children. Of 2600 full time employees at the Texas Attorney General's office, 2300 are allocated to child support enforcement.

Salutation:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Senators, Representatives, I would like to thank you for affording the citizens of Texas this opportunity to voice our views on issues important to all Texans.

Opening Statement:

Before proceeding I would like to raise an important point that I've raised in the past regarding the scheduling of these hearings. I understand that availability of facilities and legislators' busy schedules are the constraints that dictate where and when public hearings such as this are held.

In the past I have made Committee members aware that by scheduling these hearings during working hours, a great many citizens, citizens directly affected by the legislation that evolves from Committee recommendations, are precluded from expressing their views simply for economic reasons. It should also be noted that Committee hearings are held, almost invariably, on Wednesdays, I feel it significant to note that many non-custodial parents are also excluded from expressing their views because these hearings conflict with their visitation.

I raise these points out of concern that, owing to scheduling considerations, the Committee's exposure to testimony will be limited to the less than objective views and input of bureaucratic insiders: the paid lobbyists, salaried bureaucrats, and private sector interests who are compensated for attending such hearings or those who stand to gain financially or politically from this Committee's recommendations.

Essentially, I am concerned that this Committee is operating without the full benefit of the public's views.

Rather than a criticism of this Committee, It is my hope that by raising this on going concern, Committee members, in recognition of the value and necessity of public participation and input, will make the additional effort to accommodate the public and incorporate some scheduling flexibility in future hearings. I assure you that your consideration in this matter is appreciated.

Opening relative to subject matter:

I want to begin by stating that my original intent today was to provide this Committee with both testimony and a comprehensive, detailed presentation of the specific concerns that I share with a great many Texans.

However, owing to the time constraints of this forum and the complexity of many of the issues, and in the interest of brevity I have chosen to curtail this presentation.

Therefore, my testimony today will focus on providing this Committee with an overview of these concerns. I will of course provide each of the Committee members with copies of my comprehensive research on the issue at a later date.

To address the issue of child support enforcement:

Of primary concern are the problems within the Attorney General's office in general, and in particular the appearance of selective or discriminatory practices with respect to child support enforcement policies and the provision of services.

Ignoring for the present the fact that all enforcement policies thus far have discriminated against non-custodial parents in general and, divorced fathers in particular, the common thread in a majority of the complaints that N.C.F.M. and similar organizations receive regarding child support enforcement is that policies are arbitrary and selective in their availability and enforcement.

Almost universal in these complaints is the widespread belief that these selective enforcement practices and the discriminatory provision of agency services are politically motivated.

In short, many citizens feel that the bureaucratic goals and objectives of the Attorney General's office have taken precedence over the welfare of Texas families.

The most widely held criticism of present enforcement practices seems to be that certain politicians and agency management have chosen to arbitrarily enforce only the portions of the law that they find palatable or politically advantageous.

From a purely civic viewpoint, it remains unquestioned that such arbitrary enforcement practices discourage public confidence in state government and act as a disincentive to voluntary compliance. Further, when such policies target only males for enforcement, while ignoring the requests of fathers for services, the public's complaints of discrimination and unequal protection under the law seem justified.

Almost axiomatic in the complaints of the public was the view that agency employees were needlessly confrontational, often intimidating and in many instances, just plain rude to the citizens they ostensibly serve. Also frequently noted is the apparent widespread ignorance of changes in the law on the part of the Attorney General's agency staff.

It goes without saying that a confrontational "us against them" mentality, ignorance of the law, and discriminatory enforcement practices are hardly an environment conducive to promoting the best interests of Texas children or building public confidence and respect for state government. One need look no further than the statistics from our juvenile justice system, Child Protective Services and the DPRS to realize that governmental involvement in the lives of Texas families isn't necessarily a good thing.

These complaints are not new. But in recent years growing public perception of an out-of-control bureaucracy has left many citizens with the belief that their rights and concerns don't amount to very much. Again, hardly an environment conducive to the public's best interests.

The more we allow the government to intrude, the worse things get.

The fault for a great many of the problems and complaints involving child support enforcement and the Attorney General's office can be attributed to a management style and agenda that places bureaucratic and political self-interest above those of the public.

Indeed, I would submit that the actions and attitudes of the rank and file employees of the Attorney General's office are more a reflection of that agency's management philosophy than they are the result of the independent actions of individuals.

With the political agenda of agency management being at the root of most of these problems, I doubt that any legislative action can provide relief or address the shortcomings of enforcement practices that are directed by the whims or ephemera of political personalities.

Each legislative session these same politicians and bureaucrats, armed with the results of their own past failures and bolstered by their own skewed, statistics, statistics with no appreciable basis in fact, statistics that ignore the economic realities of our citizens, come before our legislators with the same dire predictions, the same emergency requests, and the same pat assurances.

The hollow promises are made "that with a few million more tax dollars,", or "with only a few hundred more in staff", or "with a larger facility", or "a little more power, we can get the job done."

And each legislative session the citizens of Texas come before the legislators with these same concerns.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for a change.

It's time to remove responsibility for child support enforcement from the political arena and depoliticize the tragedy of the growing divorce industry in this state.

As many Texans, I am in favor of transferring the responsibility for child support enforcement from the control of the Attorney General's office.

Historically, the administrative practices, management style, and political agenda of that agency has been one of self-interest and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.

Further, as a taxpayer, homeowner, and civil rights advocate, I fully support the concept of reducing governmental intrusion into the lives of citizens, and of returning certain functions of government to the private sector.

Even though I support the free market and personal enterprise I MUST STATE - EMPHATICALLY THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT IS NOT A FUNCTION THAT I FEEL CAN BE PRACTICALLY AND RESPONSIBLY TURNED OVER TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

AGAIN I STRESS, I AM CATEGORICALLY AGAINST any legislative proposal that would turn child support enforcement over to third party private sector collection agencies under any circumstance.

Certainly it must be apparent to all of you how attractive the prospect of being handed a half-billion dollar client base must be to those who would profit from the destruction of Texas families.

With a ratio of one attorney for every 303 Texans, doubtless you are aware that there are those unscrupulous individuals in our judiciary, the legal community, and the collections industry who would stop at nothing in order to capitalize on the Texas divorce industry and control a substantial part of this state economy.

The prospect of gaining low cost entry and access to a half-billion dollar collections market bonanza would be a powerful incentive to many.

In fact, even the possibility of third party child support enforcement suggests several disturbing scenarios: A scenario that rather than the stereotypical "ambulance chaser", so long synonymous with the Texas legal community, the editorial pages of our newspapers will soon display caricatures depicting members of the legal community scouring the business pages for bankruptcies; or news of plant closings.

A grim scenario of taking the Texas divorce industry public and selling "divorce futures."

Equally disturbing in such a scenario would be the abuses that will run rampant in an already highly discriminatory process when left to the discretion and ethics of private-sector, for-profit entities.

The prospect of loosing the many unscrupulous collection companies on Texas families, unfettered by fair credit practices regulation, is reprehensible. This is especially so when you consider that no effort has ever been made to address the bias of our family courts in the areas of child custody. The very real discriminatory practices that relegate every divorced male to visitor status in the lives of his children, and that codifies the status of Texas fathers, brothers and sons as second-class citizens.

With the lives and circumstances of Texas families in the balance and with the very existence of fathers and the role they play in the lives of their children in question, it would be unconscionable to consider turning responsibility for child support enforcement over to a private sector motivated by financial gain, regulated only by greed, and answerable to no one.

Conclusions:

Two themes can summarize the concerns and objectives of many Texans on the issue of child support enforcement:

1.> Yes! We must remove child support enforcement from the control of the Attorney General's office. We must address the issues of fairness and equity in child custody, acknowledge a child's right to both parents, implement visitation and access enforcement, and develop policies to address the changing economic realities of our citizens.

2.> NO! We must not allow the lives and circumstances of Texas families to become yet another center for divorce industry opportunists or to act as an incentive to further demean the estate of fatherhood.

With a view toward addressing both these themes, I would like to commend Senator Chris Harris for his efforts with this Committee and for introducing legislation that proposes solutions (S.B. 797) to many of the issues I've raised.

Senator Harris's bill, while not perfect, would have accomplished the objectives I've summarized.

Introduced last session, S.B. 797 would have created the type of responsible, problem-solving agency necessary to evolve the comprehensive, non-discriminatory, pro-family, real-world enforcement practices that Texas has needed for years. I support Senator Harris's legislation (to create a new government agency, whose head would be appointed by the governor) and I urge him to keep after it this legislative session.

Thank you again for this opportunity to share my views and concerns.

[NCFM HOME PAGE]

Go to the TOP of this page.

National Coalition of Free Men
PO Box 129
Manhasset, NY 11030