Columnist Sandra Thompson: Child-support crisis is brewing

Sandra Thompson

Sunday, June 4, 2000 | 9 a.m.

Sandra Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or through e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com.

Is child support enforcement becoming a national crisis?

Many custodial and noncustodial parents say yes, but for two seemingly contradictory reasons:

1) An inability to enforce many support orders, primarily between states

2) An "overzealousness" in support collection efforts

Consider the following small sampling of local cases that are representative of the high volume of calls, letters and e-mail about child support:

According to Nevada's records, her ex is paying $55 a month (although the original order was $437), but Kristen isn't getting it. She says caseworkers told her they don't know where the money is going, but speculate it's sent to some state coffer as partial reimbursement for the welfare payments she received for the time she was out of work.

Kristen contends the money should go to her daughter. The girl is mentally and physically challenged and requires special medication and care.

Shelley's case has been spread over four states: Nevada, her residence since 1986; Maryland, which issued the original support order; Oregon, her ex-husband's residence; and Missouri, the headquarters of her ex's former employer who refused to garnishee his wages to fulfill the support order.

Despite a recent Oregon court ruling that she is owed more than $26,000, neither Shelley nor the nine local caseworkers she has had in the last two years are able to collect.

On the other side of the coin:

Now married for 19 years with two sons, Bruce has been told he must pay back support in a case he thought had been dismissed in the early 1980s, but it was resurrected in 1994. He paid $499 for the paternity test to prove his case, he says, and is awaiting a ruling on its validity since it was administered by a private agency.

There are many similar cases, some of which have received national publicity.

Other noncustodial parents have received similar bills even though they paid the amount ordered by the court. Being responsible for welfare payments, they say, amounts to being charged double.

Noncustodial parents who do fulfill their financial obligations say they should not be made to feel like criminals or painted with the same brush as those who don't support their children.

Custodial parents who need the support to provide basic needs for their children advocate stronger collection measures.

The bottom line is that not all custodial mothers are money-hungry, revenge-filled witches, and not all noncustodial fathers are deadbeat cads who dine on lobster while their children eat beans.

Those stereotypes -- coupled with vigorous efforts to make noncustodial parents pay staggering welfare costs -- fan the flames of debate.

Considering the billions of dollars and the wide range of emotions involved, a national crisis is indeed brewing.