The "Clinton Administration" removes children from their fathers; sets up impossible roadblocks which prevent fathers from even SEEING their own children; calls fathers "visitors" to their own children; wrecks fathers' lives, businesses, careers, drivers' licenses, business licenses; and then makes statements like:

"both parents must be responsible for their children"

GIVE US OUR CHILDREN BACK! Then we will be as "responsible" as we always were, before you TOOK THEM.

Excerpted from

Improving Child Support Enforcement

Twenty-seven state waivers are strengthening child support enforcement, sending a clear message that both parents must be responsible for their children. Under its child support enforcement program, this administration has required all states to establish hospital-based paternity programs and has substantially increased Federal spending on child support enforcement. States are also experimenting with new strategies to ensure that both parents contribute to the economic well-being of their children. For example, several states are experimenting with "pass through" arrangements that allow families to collect a larger percentage of child support payments, thus increasing incentives to obtain and enforce court orders.

Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin

Extracted from

Continuing to Strengthen Child Support Enforcement: Due to the President's unprecedented and sustained campaign to make noncustodial parents pay the child support they owe, the Clinton Administration collected a record $12 billion in child support in 1996, an increase of 50% since 1992. Paternity establishment almost doubled to nearly 1 million cases in FY 1996, from 516,000 in 1992. And the number of families actually receiving child support rose to 4 million cases with collections, an increase of 43 percent, over 2.8 million in 1992.

[Colorado] Legislature goes belly up Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 01:10:00 -0400 From: [email protected] To:

[email protected]

The following was published as an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News on April 27, 1997. I think their web site is You can express yourselves there.

HB 1205 can be found at Stuart Miller told me that the federal welfare bill did not mandate such laws, only authorized the states to enact similar legislation. Any further information from AFC would be greatly appreciated.


THE ISSUE: A new child support enforcement bill

OUR VIEW: It's unconstitutional

As so often happens, pelf is talking louder than principle at the Colorado legislature. It seems determined to pass a bad child-support bill in order not to risk losing an estimated $35 million or more in federal welfare funds.

At issue is House Bill 1205, one of the less publicized mandates needed to implement last year's federal welfare reform.

How bad is it? When sponsoring Sen. Jeff Wells, R-Colorado Springs, presented this bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee he resorted to the sort of language we usually pass over. But we'll make an exception in this case. "This bill sucks," Wells said, in an astonishing assessment of his own measure.

Wells tried to tone it down a bit with some amendments but the basic outrages survive and the committee approved it 5-3.

Surely everyone favors child support, and all's fair in the collection of delinquent accounts, isn't it?

No, it's not. Consider some of the more objectionable parts of the 129-page bill:

� After Oct. 1, all those applying for, or renewing, professional or occupational licenses, such as lawyers, doctors or beauticians, will be checked for delinquency. If they flunk, their licenses will be automatically revoked or suspended. How that person then catches up with payments is a Catch-22 question.

� Even driver's licenses and hunting and fishing licenses must be forfeited until delinquencies are absolved.

� Colorado employers must report all new hires to the welfare department's child support enforcement agency, which will match the names against its list of delinquents. This is to simplify the garnisheeing of wages.

� Every three months the list of about 60,000 delinquent parents will be sent to 400 banks, credit unions and other financial institutions. They are obligated to run the list against the names of their depositors, and if they find a match, notify the welfare department. It in turn will confiscate the amount delinquent, or as much of it as is in the account, without notice.

� If the amount can't be taken in cash, delinquents are subject to having automatic liens placed against their real or personal property, including autos worth more than $5,000. Automatic means you get no advance notice, as you get when, say a mechanic's lien is filed against you.

� If paternity is an issue and you are the accused, don't try to exercise what you thought was your constitutional right to a jury trial. That's prohibited under the bill. A laboratory will decide.

The ancient American tradition of "due process of law" obviously carries no weight with the child-support enforcement gang.

By the way, those who still believe their financial institutions work for them instead of the government will learn a harsh lesson. The institutions don't like doing these quarterly review, to be sure, but they've been apparently bought off with the promise of a payment from the state of 5 cents a name. Hmmm, 5 cents times 60,000 names times 400 institutions times four times a year equals $4.8 million a year in public funds.

Mistakes will be made, of course. Lots of them. Wrong names and social security numbers will produce big, expensive trouble for many innocent parents. But they needn't bother suing. The bill is careful to absolve case workers, banks and anyone else from liability so long as they acted "in good faith."

"The bill is totally unconstitutional," said Sen. Bill Thiebaut, D-Pueblo, who knows something about child support, since he and his wife are raising 15 children of their own.

Sen. Dick Mutzebaugh, R-Highlands Ranch, called it "the most intrusive violation of privacy I've ever seen."

By the way, Thiebaut voted against the bill in committee, Mutzebaugh for it.

What good is a bill that even its supporters hate?

"Let them keep the $36 million and we keep our constitutional rights," said an outraged Sen. Ed Perlmutter, D-Golden (who voted no).

Toning down the bill is good, killing it would be better. Wells should have coordinate with colleagues in other states so that Colorado wouldn't have to stand alone. Most states are still working on their own versions, "with grunts and grumbles," according to a National Conference of State Legislatures staffer.

If several states refuse to bow to the federal mandate and have federal funds withheld as a consequence, well, what are congressional representatives for?