|
Over the course of 2018, top scholars will debate on these pages some of the most pressing issues facing low-income Americans today. Policies aimed at reducing poverty and increasing opportunity for low-income Americans will be the focus. Both sides of an issue will be presented in a series of point/counterpoint essays in the hopes of opening minds and advancing discussion. We hope you enjoy it and we welcome respectful feedback in the comments section.
This is the third part of a debate series on Child Support Assurance. Read the rest of the conversation here.
Child support assurance should appeal to a diverse set of policy analysts seeking to protect children and encourage parental responsibility, so it may not be surprising that we and Doar agree on much of the proposal. And there is room for compromise — we suggest a minimum child support payment of $150 a month, Doar a more targeted $50 a month; the midpoint of a $100 per month guarantee would be an important step.
The most fundamental difference — and we are not even sure it is a disagreement — relates to the framing of the benefit. Child support assurance is not another benefit for low-income custodial parents; rather, it protects children of low-income (or uncooperative) noncustodial parents from losing important resources — regardless of the custodial parents’ incomes.
Child support assurance should encourage both parents to participate in the child support system. If custodial parents establish an order, the child will be assured of receiving at least the minimum benefit on a regular basis. And noncustodial parents can count on reasonable orders and public support to top-up what they can provide, if necessary (i.e., if their order is less than the minimum benefit). Moreover, a child support guarantee creates a direct public interest in noncustodial parents meeting their obligations because the government would need to make up the difference. This should motivate more consistent attention to a range of policy issues — from the impact of incarceration on earnings, to the value of work supports (such as the EITC) for both custodial and noncustodial parents.
We understand the desire to restrict new benefits to those with low incomes. But, since parents tend to partner with people of similar economic status, children with low-income fathers are likely to also have low-income mothers (and when higher-income fathers miss a payment, it is likely to be recouped quickly). Moreover, this is not, fundamentally, just one more program to help the needy single mothers. It is a commitment to children living with one parent to help the other parent provide support.
Read Part I and Part II.
Child support assurance is not another benefit for low-income custodial parents; rather, it protects children of low-income (or uncooperative) noncustodial parents from losing important resources — regardless of the custodial parents’ incomes.
|
