The deadbeat dad law was created to punish 'failure fathers' who contemptuously refuse to support their children, but rarely enforced, and leaves the country wondering if it's design was nothing more than 'lip service.' After two and a half years of studying the child support enforcement system from deep down in the trenches of personal involvement, I have discovered the 'missing link' that causes the law to remain so often ignored.
In Florida, Child Support Enforcement is overseen by the Department of Revenue, and legal counsel is retained by the Department of Revenue. Child Support Enforcement is not Mom's attorney. Child Support Enforcement doesn't even retain the attorney. Mom is Child Support Enforcement's client, but Mom is not the 'client' of any lawyer.
By removing counsel one more layer and letting the Department of Revenue contract the lawyer, now, Child Support Enforcement is not only not an attorney, it doesn't even retain one. The convolusion begins here, with the missing link of a mom, and legal representation.
Too many situations involving child support require litigation, but the attorney does not provide this service as a part of his agreement with HIS client.
Litigation is arguing before the courts. When "Dad" demands a DNA test, and it proves he is the father, his lawyer can 'argue' (litigate) the merits of the case on issues such as, the reliability, or lack thereof, of DNA testing. Mom's lawyer would then make an argument back, and a judge would decide.
Whenever "Mom" seeks out the service of Child Support Enforcement, she turns over all rights to her case to them, the DOR and the DOR's attorney. She cannot have a lawyer, and if litigation becomes necessary, as in a case stated above, she is left with no legal representation because the DOR's attorney has a contract that does not include a service for litigation.
The biggest breakdown of the entire system is where Welfare fits in to the Child Support Enforcement regime. When a couple has money, they hire divorce lawyers, the case is heard in court, and the decisions are made. When a couple is poor however, Dad is much more likely to refuse child support until someone makes him do so. This forces Mom to seek help from the state for necessities like, food, medical coverage, and sometimes even shelter, for her children, and above all, a broken governmental agency that gives her no legal counsel, or recourse when THEY fail her, because they now OWN her case and can be permitted to 'sit on it' due to a need for the service of litigation, which they do not provide.
Furthermore, Mom's are doubly, even triply, strong armed by this agency's stranglehold over her, because if she requires state assistance of any kind, she is blackmailed into 'cooperating' with Child Support Enforcement. Blackmailed by an agency whose mission statement is to keep her from getting that support for as long as possible so it can receive more federal and Title IV funding to hire more people who will not do their job. If the extra money from federal funding and Title IV funding were reappropriated to a fund for providing the need for litigation, cases would move along much faster.
No comments:
Post a Comment