I recently read or heard (I can't remember which nor can I remember the source)that the locale in which child support is collected receives a commission type payback based upon the amount of money collected. Two of the forms it comes in is federal aid and interest income from payments made by NCP to state bank (which is then forwarded to CP. Also, the locale keeps the money which was earmarked for AFDC and other child based programs. <P>Has anyone else heard of this? Is it true? If so, that would be huge clarification of why the state makes having a baby out of wedlock such a huge payday at the expense of the families involved.

Polly:<P>Haven't heard about that one yet. However, our expert on the subject, Bystander, is out of town on business for a few days. <BR>When he returns, you should run this question by him. I bet he has some insight/knowledge on this.<P>Catnip =^^=<P>BTW, I concur with what you said on your other thread.

I am not sure how it works. But I have a friend who receives child support from her ex. And I know for a fact that she doesn't receive what he pays. Because the state takes out so much for doing the "paperwork" between the parents. Of course the parents do not have any other options but to go through the state. Thus I think you are right, they are making money off men paying for their mistakes. That is why they will stop at nothing to search the man out and make him pay, even if the woman doesn't want anything from him. I think it is a little too ironic, that government is doing all of the leg work, just for the kids, lets face it that would be a first.<P>babstr.

<BR>PPB,<P>The short answer is yes, the state receives economic incentives to collect and process child support payments. How big this incentive is depends on whether we're talking a flat fee for service or a percentage. A flat fee structure would encourage state behavior to increase child support case loads but would be indifferent to the size of child support awards. A percentage-based system would not only encourage state behavior to increase case loads, but would also encourage ever-larger support awards.<P>I can't speak to how individual states operate, but I have read about a company that aggressively lobbies for ever-larger support awards and then subcontracts with states to collect these awards, on a percentage basis.<P>Bystander

Bystander,<BR>thanks for sharing, though I find that really depressing information. I'm all for catching "deadbeat dads", but this is ridiculous... <P>Is there a way to find out what system any given state has?

<BR>Jenny,<P>My understanding, based only on conversations I've had with family lawyers, is that most states operate on a flat-fee system. I've never researched this myself in depth, and my previous post was only pointing out that different incentive structures would drive different types of conduct by the state.<P>My experience also indicates that changing the system, on both the financial front (i.e., basing child support on costs, not income) and the custody front (i.e., moving to a default of 50% joint physical and legal custody during a divorce) is truly daunting. In discussing this with family lawyers, I'm told that the "system" of psychologists, child support collectors, etc will jealously guard their jobs and will oppose any meaningful reform. To them, it doesn't really matter the morality of the cases' outcomes - it only matters that they have a job. Its cynical to say this, but as I continue to study things, I'm afraid that there is a grain of truth to this assertion. Changing the system will require a culture change in the family court system, more than anything.<P>Anyhow, to answer your question specifically, you could call the child support collection office and ask them to explain how they derive the cost figures that are deducted from the child support amounts. That's a good place to start, anyhow.<P>Bystander

I live in TN, here is part of the "code"<P>(a) Each clerk of a court in this state receiving, handling and disbursing spousal support, child support, and similar moneys under and by order of court is entitled to charge and receive from the obligor the sum of five percent (5%) for any and all payments received during each calendar month for such clerk's services in so receiving, handling and disbursing same in addition to any amounts collected for support. Any support order which does not specifically include payment of the clerk's fee by the obligor is deemed to authorize the clerk to collect the fee from the obligor. The clerk's fee shall be an obligation of the obligor and shall be added to the amount of court-ordered child support, making the total obligation of the obligor the support plus the clerk's fee. The clerk is authorized to accept a partial payment of child support and shall prorate any such partial payment as to support and clerk's fee. <BR>(b) All records, papers, files, and other documents in the clerk's office pertaining to Title IV-D collections shall be open for inspection and subject to audit by the department of human services, the office of the comptroller of the treasury, or authorized agents of the federal government. The clerk has the authority to contract with the department of human services, subject to availability of funds, to pay for the costs of collecting child support under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and the laws of this state pursuant thereto, but any expenditures for which reimbursement is sought under such a contract shall be reduced by the amount of fees collected by the contracting clerk under subsection (a). <P><BR>If you need more info or info about your state, let me know.<P><BR>[This message has been edited by Paul Moyers (edited June 08, 2000).]<p>[This message has been edited by Paul Moyers (edited June 09, 2000).]

I live in KS and here the court system receives 2.5% of the child support payments collected monthly.

So much for family values. Thanks guys for the informed responses.