While there are numerous important and positive outcomes of Title IV-D, it has also been responsible for separating millions of children from fit and loving parents since being enacted in the 1970's. Title IV-D was (unintentionally) structured in such a way that can give substantial financial incentives to states based on how custody is divided when parents separate. When adjusted in a certain way, states have discovered that the less custody given to higher wage-earning parents, the more they can collect from Title IV-D federal funds. Due to the substantial amounts of financial incentives at stake, states will continue to optimize on this cruel equation, and continue severing child-parent bonds and traumatizing children indefinitely.

This flaw and others in Title IV-D statutes present an irresistible conflict of interest for states to neglect basic human rights in favor of financial gain. No amount of financial gain however, is worth the sacrifice of our children. It is entirely feasible to keep the positive aspects of Title IV-D, while correcting its flaws, but it is entirely up to the people to initiate such corrective action. We cannot expect that states will seek to remedy the situation autonomously, nor will federal bureaucracy, we must take action.

States will continue to separate children from their parents for as long as they have financial incentives to do so, it is as simple as that. Our proposed Title IV-D reform simply replaces this destructive financial incentive with one that keeps parents involved in their children's lives. When states are incentivized to keep parents involved rather than keep them apart from their children, significant and positive changes will begin to happen in family courts throughout the nation. Along with addressing the negative aspects of Title IV-D, this reform will also improve upon the positive aspects, such as child support. Financial support obligations will continue to be core to Title IV-D, but it will be the obligation of both parents, along with all other forms of child responsibility.

Ultimately, this reform seeks to equalize areas of responsibility and obligations between separated parents to create a much stronger support system for their children. This reform will also serve to eliminate one of the last remaining areas of institionalized discrimination. By equalizing domestic responsibility and addressing fatherlessness, which disproportionately affects children of color, it will be a significant win for gender, domestic, and racial equality. Please review the draft of the Resolution for yourself and take action!

With this proposed reform, separated parents will be expected to participate in all areas of parental responsibility, including financial support. A check each month from one parent to another (currently known as "child support") is no longer sufficient for today's heterogeneous families with both parents working and children splitting time between different households. Child support checks will be superceded by a shared expense account where both parents will be required to contribute money to cover essential child living expenses. While most parents are expected to contribute something, each will be responsible for an amount according to their ability to earn income and share of custody. Formulas will continue to be used to help calculate these quantities, which will be mandatory for low-income households that otherwise might require public assistance. Parents who are willing and able to cover child expenses may choose to negotiate the amounts themselves, or, for the vast majority of cases, may opt-out entirely by mutual agreement.

Some examples are given below for different household scenarios with detailed explanations that follow. Each parent is assigned two quantities: 1) "Household demand" is the amount each parent needs to cover child expenses in their household, and 2) "Financial obligation" is the amount each parent contributes to cover the total "household demand" of both parents. Each parent may draw from the expense account up to their assigned "household demand" for a given month. Some parents may contribute more than they draw depending on their income level and share of custody, which is reflected in the "benefit vector".

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.