Title IV-D Reform Resolution

A RESOLUTION

To reform Title IV, Part D of the U.S. Social Security Act and correct its flaws as promised when first enacted.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives and Senate in Congress assembled.

SEC. 1. DEFINITIONS

As used in this document, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

"Child" means an individual considered to be a minor according to their age.
"Custodial rights" or "custody" with respect to a child and their parent, means the legal right to determine the physical location of their child, with the immediate and primary responsibility of safety and care for that child.
"Biological parent" with respect to a child, means an individual who contributed identical biological material to the reproductive process resulting in the birth of that child.
"Legal parent" with respect to a child, means a biological or adoptive parent (or other) with legal custodial rights of that child.
"Parent" means a biological parent or a legal parent, or both.
"Shared custodial rights" or "shared custody" describes a situation where multiple legal parents share custodial rights of the same child.
"Share of custody" in a shared custody situation, means the percentage share of time on a per-annum basis that a legal parent has custodial rights of the shared child.
"Parental obligations" means any and all forms of responsibility, provisions and resources needed to raise a child, including, but not limited to: physical attendance, emotional security and bonding, spiritual, educational and medical needs, and financial support.
"Parental obligation", or "obligation" means one of the parental obligations specifically defined within the context, for example: educational obligation means the responsibility of a parent to promote the intellectual development of their children.
"Household income" means the combined income of all earners in a household that contribute to a household budget. For example if a divorced father works a part-time job as a waiter and his significant other works full-time as an investment banker, and they share a residence and meals, both incomes are combined to calculate the household income.
"Household member" means any individual who contributes to, or who regularly consumes resources provided by, a household income.
"Title IV-D" refers to Title IV, Part D of the U.S. Social Security Act.
"State Title IV-D program", or "Title IV-D program" means a Title IV-D program implemented by a state.
"Child support" means a specific dollar amount that a parent is legally required to pay on behalf of their shared children, recurring on a periodic basis.
"Household demand of shared children" or "household demand" means a specific dollar amount that is needed to cover essential living expenses of shared children for one parent's household on a periodic basis. If parents are separated, there will be a separate household demand determined for each household. Total household demand is the combined sum of each household demand of the shared children.
"Parental financial obligation" or "financial obligation" means a specific dollar amount that one parent contributes to cover a portion of the total household demands of their shared children.

Unless noted otherwise, this document pertains to arrangements where parents of a given child reside in different households, such as divorced or separated parents.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS

Title IV-D was enacted to collect child support payments from willfully absent or neglectful parents whose children received public assistance or were at risk of doing so. When signed into law, then President Ford saw the immediate benefits and need for Title IV-D with sharply rising divorce rates. However, those benefits came with some serious defects that he promised to correct, including overreach into domestic relations, and administrative and privacy issues.
Title IV-D provides federal financial assistance to help fund state Title IV-D programs through reimbursements and cash bonus payments. Bonus payments are based on performance measures that include (among other factors) how many child support cases are open and how much money is collected and distributed through them. In FY2018, nearly $4 billion of federal money was used to fund state programs.
The scope of state Title IV-D program child support cases expanded over time to include all separated parents whether they receive state aid or not. For those parents not receiving state aid, the intent of this expansion is to balance "luxury" or "lifestyle" spending among the separate households. For example, if mother's annual income is $150,000 and father's is $58,000, each parent should be able to share the combined income of $208,000. Within these non-aid cases, which outnumber aid-based cases, Title IV-D programs attempt to determine lifestyle budgets and control discretionary spending of individual parents. Control of discretionary spending on children who are financially secure has obvious Constitutional implications that have not been properly scrutinized. In some states, there are no limits on this transfer of income between parents, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars a month in extreme cases.
Penalties for missed or late payments became more punitive and unreasonable over time, including automated revoking of a parent's driver's license, professional licenses and even incarceration. Such actions defeat a parent's ability to earn income and meet financial and other parental obligations triggering a self-perpetuating cycle of administrative abuse, to the detriment of their children. Many of these cases of administrative abuse end in suicide of the abused parent.
States began blurring the lines between the separation of powers in administering Title IV-D programs to maximize revenue. For example, California began appointing "commissioners" to hear and try child support cases who are paid directly from Title IV-D program funds, and even include Title IV-D paid attorneys into these same hearings. The Title IV-D program in Minnesota is another example where violations of the separation of powers were found by the Supreme Court.
Over time, states tuned their programs to maximize Title IV-D federal assistance, often to the detriment of the children they are sworn to serve. Specifically, child support guidelines have been formulated such that the amount of Title IV-D revenue earned is a function of child custody arrangements. The more a child is separated from the higher wage-earning parent, the greater the Title IV-D bonus payments. Further, the more money demanded from the higher wage-earning parent, the greater the Title IV-D assistance. This has incentivized courts to order less custody with higher wage-earning parents along with demanding unreasonable child support amounts, violating fundamental human rights. Some states even allow courts to impute income, where child support guidelines are calculated based on what-if scenarios and imaginary income.
The child support formulas of many states include little or no consideration for other children or income that each household might support. This forces many parents to dedicate a much higher amount of their income to some children over others. Family courts justify this imbalance by stating that subsequent children from other relationships are choices to be made that should not affect the amount of money dedicated to existing children. This is a draconian form of reproductive control and free will of states upon their citizens.
Today, children live in heterogeneous households often with two sets of parents, stepparents and step-siblings. Title IV-D is grounded in a fundamental premise that one parent earns income, while the other stays at home to care for children. That notion is a distant memory with many children living between two households with two or more income earners. State Title IV-D programs are unable to effectively account for more than one income-earning parent and are limited to assign financial obligations to at most one parent. Many state programs are unable to even recognize that parents can share custody, with the only possible configuration being one custodial parent and one non-custodial parent.
A recent evaluation of the Title IV-D program in California includes the following statements from Title IV-D commissioners and agency staff members (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/lr-2018-JC-review-of-statewide-CS-guideline-2017-Fam-4054a.pdf):
- "we asked the participants to think about and choose one word to describe the current California guideline. Their individual responses were 'draconian,' 'confusing,' and 'blind.'"
- "The commissioner whose one-word description of the guideline had been 'unfair' expanded on that point this way: If you are a low-wage earner and you have three kids, you get hit hard. If you are a high-wage earner and you have got one kid, you get hit hard. And if you are a middle-wage earner and the other side has no income, you get hit hard."
- "there was general if not unanimous agreement that the current formula is often unfair"
- "In closing, one participant said, 'There are times when we run the calculator absolutely correctly, but we know they can’t afford it.'"
The abusive potential of Title IV-D was never corrected, rather, as anticipated, it has been fully realized. This abuse has advanced into the territory of human rights violations and Constitutional infringement. Title IV-D incentivizes state governments to separate children from fit and loving parents. Many aspects of Title IV-D are severely obsolete, rooted in a time when one parent stayed home to care for their children and the other worked outside the home to earn income. Title IV-D is one of the last remaining statutes responsible for institutionalized discrimination and is long overdue for reform.

SEC. 3. PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

While the legal scope of Title IV-D is limited to financial matters, it can and should set the tone for domestic equality among all areas of parental responsibility.

Parents have the primary responsibility to provide for, and raise their children, which likewise, is every parent's primary responsibility.
Each parent has equal responsibility to provide for, and raise their children.
Each parent should be held equally responsible for each and every parental obligation. No single parental obligation should be assigned, nor denied to one parent over another. For example, if during marriage the mother earned income while the father stayed at home to care for the children, the mother should not then be denied physical contact while the father be relieved of all financial responsibility after they divorce.
A biological parent with no legal parental rights may be imposed financial or other obligations for their children.
1. Biological parents should be encouraged to seek legal parental rights and obligations of all forms, including a share of custody of their children, notwithstanding prior legal judgements otherwise. Formal communication to biological parents regarding their financial obligations should include information about custody rights and other (non-financial) parental obligations.
States should seek to minimize any situation where a parent is subject to retroactive financial obligations (back-pay) by communicating such rights and obligations to all parents as early as possible.

SEC. 4. TITLE IV-D INCENTIVES

Title IV-D includes financial incentives to state programs based on their performance. To avoid the potential for abuse and incentivizing states to limit custody to the higher wage-earning parent, measures of success should not be based on maximizing caseload. To the contrary, success should be measured by minimizing caseload and maximizing self-sufficiency of each separated parent.
1. Measures of success should include the number of (separated) parent households with income that exceeds the minimum standards.
2. Measures of success should include the number of unemployed parents placed into full-time employment.
3. Program penalties should include exceeding a threshold for an imbalance of the aggregate ratio share of custody between parents.
4. States should seek to equalize each area of parental responsibility among divorced or separated parents for maximum benefits to their children.
In addition to solving paternity cases and demanding financial obligations of unmarried fathers, Title IV-D objectives should also include facilitating involvement between unmarried fathers and their children as early as possible. In such cases, outreach should inform fathers not only of their financial obligations but also of their rights and responsibilities, including information on attaining legal parental rights. Communication should be clear, fair, and made in good faith upon initial contact. All biological parents should be encouraged to take an active and positive role in every parental obligation unless legally forbidden otherwise.
Penalties for missed or late financial obligation payments should not interfere with a parent's ability to earn income and provide for their children. Such penalties ultimately punish the children. Penalties that consider the children involved might include substance abuse monitoring, mandatory counseling, and limiting transportation to work or family-related activities. In addition to penalties, delinquent parents should be offered opportunities to advance their career or vocation, including job placement and training services. Title IV-D programs should also offer debt counseling and debt consolidation opportunities.

SEC. 5. CONSTITUTIONAL CONFORMANCE OF STATE TITLE IV-D PROGRAMS

Title IV-D programs should conform to Constitutional law and respect basic human rights.
The process of determining financial obligations should not interfere with, or affect share of custody.
Delinquency penalties should not include incarceration or any action that interferes with a parent's ability to provide for themselves and their children.
States should not combine judicial or legislative responsibility in execution or administration of Title IV-D programs. States must conform to laws of the separation of powers in running Title IV-D programs.
States should not be in the business of appropriating discretionary or "luxury" spending. Such spending can not be quantified objectively, and control of such spending is Constitutionally inappropriate.
States should not give preference to some children in a household over others with respect to access to financial resources.
States should not determine financial obligations based on imputed, assumed, or imaginary income.
Parents should be treated equally in terms of parental responsibility and in regards to penalties if obligations are not met, regardless of gender, financial status, or marital status.

SEC. 6. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

As with all parental obligations, financial obligations are a primary responsibility of the parents. Recognizing that ability to generate income and share of custody may differ between separated parents, each parent may bear different financial obligation amounts to meet the needs of their children. Regardless of the financial obligation amount however, each parent should be held equally responsible for their financial obligation.

Financial Obligation Records & Accountability
At the request of any parent, for any reason, or by judicial order, a financial account should be opened for the purpose of managing essential child living expenses.
1. This account should provide legal documentation of deposits and withdrawals, with the intent to give transparency to who, what, when, where and how parental financial obligations are collected and spent.
2. Each parent should contribute a prescribed amount (their financial obligation) to this account on a monthly basis.
3. Each parent may draw up to a prescribed amount (their household demand) from this account each month for essential living expenses of their shared children. Details of each expense should be provided for each draw.
4. Undrawn amounts should carry over to the next month such that each parent has up to 12 months to use their respective household demand for a given month.
5. Any residual amounts not drawn should be periodically distributed back to each parent in proportion to each parent's balance of demand and draws, weighted by contributions. Parents may choose to leave any remaining funds, or a portion thereof, in the account by unanimous consent.
6. Parents may stipulate the prescribed household demand and financial obligation amounts by unanimous consent. Parents may use the guidelines described in SEC. 6(2) to help determine these amounts.
7. If parents cannot formally agree on household demand and financial obligation amounts, a judicial proceeding should be requested to determine these quantities.
  1. Judicial proceedings should use the guidelines described in SEC. 6(2) to help determine household demand and financial obligation amounts. The guidelines should be presumed correct, and any deviations should be formally documented.
  2. Operational costs of judicial proceedings held to determine these amounts should not be sourced, in whole or in part, by Title IV-D program funds to avoid any conflict of interest and potential for administrative abuse.
Financial Obligation Guidelines
A financial model should be established to provide guidelines for household demand and financial obligation amounts of each parent. An example financial model applied to an example profile of family scenarios is given below.
1. This financial model should provide fair, consistent, and predictable guidelines among most parents under most circumstances. Guidelines should provide specific amounts for household demand and the financial obligation of each parent.
2. This financial model should cover essential child living expenses and should not attempt to address discretionary spending among parents.
3. A formula or table should be used to provide guidelines of the household demand for each household. Each household demand amount should be based on the number of shared children in question, and the total number of dependents each household supports, weighted by share of custody. Each amount may vary between households for the same shared children. A standard national formula or table of essential living expenses may be used if local advice is not available.
4. A formula should be used to calculate financial obligation amounts assigned to each parent. Each financial obligation amount should be based on the household demand for each parent (which already includes distribution of the share of custody), and their corresponding net household income.
  1. Net household income should be determined for each parent. Net household income is total household income less income taxes, debt payments, and other preexisting payment obligations except those directly related to essential living expenses. Specifically, amounts to determine net income should not include housing, auto payments, other transportation costs, nor any other payments used for ongoing living expenses. Household income should include income from financial obligations received on behalf of any member of the household (including spousal support).
  2. Formulas used to calculate the financial obligation amounts of each parent should not exceed a certain threshold of net household income. This threshold may vary depending on the household member count and the number of children in question.
  3. An intermediate step in this formula should determine the amount each parent should be responsible for regardless of the income threshold.
  4. These intermediate amounts may be adjusted where possible to meet any shortfall encountered if an income threshold is reached to arrive at a final obligation amount.
  5. Education, vocational training and job placement services should be provided by the state Title IV-D program and recommended to any parent whose household demand reaches their net household income threshold. Such parents should be required to use such services according to their ability, continuously for as long as the threshold is reached.
  6. If the total household demands of the shared children are not met, those children may qualify for state family assistance up to the unmet amount.
  7. Ongoing adjustments for net household income should be made as significant changes in income, debts and other financial obligations occur. Adjustments for increases in debt amounts and other financial obligations may be made on a case-by-base basis.
  8. Special arrangements may be necessary for parents with unstable income, where their household demand reaches their income threshold on a regular basis.
  9. Adjustments should be made as the membership of each household changes, including any new children, even as early as pregnancy is first known.

Examples

These example scenarios use 80% as the threshold of a household net income to be dedicated to essential dependent living expenses. This 80% threshold is divided equally among all members of a household excluding the parent the obligation is being determined for. For example, if a parent lives alone with one shared child, the parent dedicates up to 80% of their income to their child. If a parent is included in a five-member household with two shared children in question, that household dedicates up to 40% of its net income to these shared children. These examples use the following table of essential child living expenses that consider the increase in expenses required for children who reside in multiple households. The amount for each parent is determined based on the number of dependents in each parent's household.

Table 1. Household demand (USD/month)
Number of household members	1	2	3	4	5	>5
Household demand per shared child	$2,000	$1,500	$1,276	$1,100	$966	+$725 each

Table 2. Example scenarios of household demands and obligations of each parent (USD/month)
Scenario	Parent	Net household income	Household members	Shared children	Share of custody	Household demand of shared children	Financial obligation	Income threshold excess	Total unmet demand	Benefit vector
1	Daphne	$9,000	3	2	50%	$1,500	$1,800	$0	$0	-$300
1	Fred	$1,500	3	2	50%	$1,500	$1,200	-$300	$0	$300
2	Daphne	$9,000	5	2	50%	$1,100	$1,100	$0	$0	$0
2	Fred	$2,500	3	2	50%	$1,500	$1,500	$0	$0	$0
3	Daphne	$1,800	5	2	50%	$1,100	$720	-$380	$120	$380
3	Fred	$2,200	3	2	50%	$1,500	$1,760	$0	$120	-$260
4	Daphne	$4,800	4	2	50%	$1,276	$1,276	$0	$0	$0
4	Fred	$8,750	5	2	50%	$1,100	$1,100	$0	$0	$0
5	Calvin	$3,000	2	1	25%	$500	$1,229	$0	$0	-$729
5	Sharvi	$11,500	4	1	75%	$957	$229	$0	$0	$729
6	Isabel	$3,800	3	1	No financial account, one household with all income shared.
6	Todd	$3,800	3	1	No financial account, one household with all income shared.

Scenario 1
Fred has been a stay-at-home father during his marriage with Daphne with two children aged 2 and 5. Daphne is the general manager of a popular 4-star hotel and restaurant in town with an annual compensation of $180,000 ($9,000/month after taxes and debt). Fred and Daphne divorce, divide their assets of $650,000 evenly, and share equal custody of their children. Daphne is ordered to pay $2,000/month in spousal support while Fred finds employment, leaving Fred with a net income of $1,500. They are required to use a financial account to track essential living expenses of their two children due to Fred's low income. Each household demand for the shared children is $1,500/month, of which, Fred contributes $1,200, which reaches the obligation threshold of his net income, and Daphne contributes $1,800. Each draws up to $1,500 per month since each has equal custody of their children with a net benefit vector of $300/month to Fred. Since Fred reached his income threshold amount, he is required to participate in employment counseling, training and placement services provided by the Title IV-D program. Due to Daphne's higher income, she helps make up for Fred's income shortfall so no state assistance is necessary. Including spousal support, Daphne effectively pays $2,300 of her monthly net income (26%) to Fred.
This scenario illustrates a common situation where one parent stays at home with the children while the other parent earns most of the household income prior to divorce. Both parents retain equal custody to stay involved with their children as their first priority, thus Fred will start spending more time earning an income to support his now separate and distinct household. Daphne, on the other hand, will start spending more time changing diapers and getting her children fed, bathed and off to daycare and school. Fred is receiving financial assistance from Daphne via spousal support, and in the form of a positive benefit vector ($300) from parental financial obligations. Fred is required to participate in Title IV-D employment assistance services, however no state assistance is needed.
Contrast this proposal with current laws in California, for example, where Daphne would be fully responsible for all financial needs of the children as the higher wage-earning (or "non-custodial") parent. She would actually pay about $3,000-$4,000/month in spousal support and about $3,000/month in child support, at about 67% of her net income. Fred would have no formal obligations to contribute financially to his children's living expenses, and would receive about $6,500/month of support income, much of it tax-free. With no obligation to spend any support money on their children, Fred would have no formal accountability of how he spends the majority of his ex-wife's net income.
Within current state programs, Fred has no formal obligation to contribute to his children's financial needs, and receives the majority of his ex-wife's net income to spend as he wishes. Daphne, on the other hand, bears the entire financial responsibility to support not only her children, but also her ex-husband, while juggling an equal share of custody. Daphne also faces the constant threat of draconian legal liabilities if payments are not kept current, including incarceration and losing her job and career. With the same share of custody of their children, Fred bears none of the same financial responsibilities, nor legal liabilities.
Scenario 2
Continuing Scenario 1, Fred is counseled and placed with part-time employment in landscaping with monthly compensation of $1,600. This amounts to $3,600 with spousal support and total net monthly income of $2,500 after taxes and debt. Daphne remarries to Benjamin, a divorced stay-at-home father with one child of his own. They agree that Ben remain at home with the children while Daphne earns income, so their household member count increases by 2, but their net income is unchanged. Due to the increase in dependents, Daphne's household demand for her two shared children is now $1,100/month. Fred and Daphne each contribute enough to cover their respective household demands.
This scenario exhibits a situation where the mother makes significantly more income than the father, yet both are able to meet their share of the essential financial needs of their common children. A financial account remains open to continue to document each parent's contributions and track the money spent.
Contrast this with current laws in California, for example, where Fred would continue to receive about half of Daphne's net income (reduced some with his new income) to spend as he pleases. Fred would bear no formal obligation to contribute to his children's living expenses. On the other hand, Daphne is now struggling to support her new family of five since she is the sole wage-earner. Daphne is allowed only about half of her net income to support her new family, while the other half is dedicated to attempting to raise her ex-husband's standard of living according to California statutes. California's bizarre laws include determining how much of Daphne's income is considered discretionary, and how much of that discretionary money must be spent on the other parent's luxuries and "lifestyle" and how much is spent on some children and not others.
Scenario 3
Continuing Scenario 2, Daphne's business takes a downturn with the onset of a worldwide pandemic limiting travel and entertainment. Benjamin takes side jobs to help out with the loss but their household's monthly net income drops significantly to $1,800. Fred advances his career with his own landscaping business, but his monthly net income decreases overall to $2,200 with the loss of spousal support payments. Of the $2,600 total demand needed for Fred and Daphne's shared children, Fred contributes $1,760, and Daphne contributes $720 with a shortfall of $120 per month. The state family assistance program makes up for the shortfall and Daphne is now required to participate in employment counseling, job training, and placement from the Title IV-D program.
This scenario illustrates a situation where one parent is unable to meet their share of their children's living expenses, the other parent makes up for the shortfall as best they can, but family assistance from the state is ultimately needed.
Contrast this with current laws in California, for example, where Daphne, as the "non-custodial" parent, would still likely be held to her previous high-salary standard for child and spousal support payments. Current state programs consider loss of income as voluntary in many cases, and will impute income to force the "non-custodial" parent to find similar employment and compensation. Fred would still be considered the "custodial" parent with no formal financial obligations. As Daphne's savings dwindle to keep up with the court orders, support payments will get behind with significant penalties including automatic loss of her driver's license, professional licenses and even incarceration. So even though Fred now has a higher income and only himself to support with half-time of their children, he will remain free of all formal financial obligations and legal liability. Fred may continue spending his ex-wife's savings as he pleases, while she struggles to support herself and her family.
Scenario 4
Continuing Scenario 3, Fred remarries to Andrea, a successful real-estate novelist, who commands a handsome annual compensation of $175,000. Fred and Andrea have one child together and Fred is afforded the opportunity to resume his former role of stay-at-home dad. Their combined monthly net income is $8,750 and their household member count increases by two. Daphne gets re-skilled in insurance administration with a net household income of $4,800/month. Daphne's stepson enters college and their household member count drops by 1. Fred's household demand for their shared children changes to $1,100 and Daphne's changes to $1,276, each covering their own household demands. Fred and Daphne will eventually agree to close their financial account that tracks child expenses since both households can meet the needs of all their members.
This scenario illustrates a common situation where both parents are willing and able to meet the essential needs of their shared children without government assistance. Neither need financial assistance from the other parent, and eventually opt out of the effort required to track child expenses. One parent exercises their freedom to return to a stay-at-home parent role with no income of their own, but is able to rely on their new spouse's income to meet their children's needs.
Contrast this with current laws in California, for example, where only a parent's income is considered for support guidelines, but not household income. As such, Fred would still be considered the "custodial" parent with $0 income and no formal financial obligations, even though he now has the higher household income. Daphne would still have full financial responsibility, paying Fred about $1,900/month (40% of her net income) that he may spend as he wishes, while she and her new family continue to struggle financially.
Scenario 5
Calvin and Sharvi have one 8 yr-old daughter Mia when they decide to divorce. Sharvi is an Internet technologist earning $9,000 monthly net income. Calvin is a military professional who accepts a long-term position overseas with a monthly net income of $3,000. Calvin and Sharvi agree to keep their daughter with Sharvi in the U.S., with 75% custody to Sharvi and 25% to Calvin. Sharvi remarries to Scott with a daughter, Carrie, and together they earn $11,500/month net income. Sharvi's household count increases by 2, and her household demand for Mia is $957/month and her financial obligation is $229 of that demand. Calvin's household demand for Mia is $500/month and his financial obligation is $1,229, with a net benefit vector of $729 to Sharvi. Calvin's financial obligation is greater than Sharvi's, which is fair due to the imbalance in custody share and Sharvi bearing the majority of the children's needs.
This scenario illustrates a less common but important situation where one parent's livelihood is unsuitable for raising a child with a significant share of custody. The remote parent takes a smaller share of custody, and a larger share of financial responsibility.
Contrast this with the current (and bizarre) laws in California, for example, where Calvin would have no formal financial obligations to support Mia whatsoever. Oddly, Sharvi would bear Mia's entire financial responsibilities along with most other parental obligations. In addition, Sharvi would be ordered to pay Calvin about $250/month in tax-free child support to use as he pleases. The intent behind these strange California laws (which is a model for most other states), is that Calvin and Sharvi's discretionary incomes (and therefore, lifestyles) should be equal in Mia's best interests. This arrangement fails to equalize their lifestyles in any significant way and clearly does not serve Mia's best interests, which would be much better served with support from both parents.
Scenario 6
Isabel and Todd are unmarried but living together when their son Isaac is born. Isabel and Todd are in a stable relationship and intend to raise Isaac together. Both parents were present at initial wellness checkups during Isabel's pregnancy. Both parents were fully informed of their rights and obligations as unmarried parents with resources provided by the Title IV-D program. Todd learns he has no legal parental rights and no custody, but he is legally obligated to share in Isaac's prenatal and postnatal financial needs and medical expenses. During one of the very first pregnancy checkups, Todd is encouraged by the Title IV-D program to take an active part in future Isaac's life and to seek legal parental rights and an equal share of custody. At the same time, Isabel is encouraged by the Title IV-D program to help Todd acquire legal parental rights in the best interests of their future son. Isabel intends to stay at home with Isaac while Todd continues full-time employment to provide household income. Because they are not married, they are encouraged to use a financial account to formally document each parent's financial contributions and essential child expenses. Todd and Isabel agree on legal parentage terms giving each an equal share of custody. The parents choose not to pursue the financial tracking account due to their mutual commitment to raise Isaac together in a manner they see fit. However, each reserves the right to a financial tracking account if their relationship ever destabilizes.
This is an increasingly common scenario where children are being born to unmarried parents. In these situations it is important to inform both parents of each other's rights and obligations, and to encourage significant participation from each to ensure the best outcomes for their children. Because Todd acquires legal parental status with equal custody, he doesn't have to be concerned about the state demanding months or years of back-support if child expense tracking is required in the future.
Contrast with the current laws in California, for example, where unmarried parents are not informed, and in many cases would not be aware of their parental rights and obligations otherwise. There are many examples where fathers in this situation faced months and years of child support back-pay since none of their contributions were sufficiently documented. Unable to pay the many thousands of dollars at once, their driver's licence, passport and other professional licenses would automatically be revoked and they may have no legal standing of seeing their children ever again. This is in no way in the best interests of their children, to the contrary, it is highly detrimental and abusive to any children involved.