I was reading another article earlier today and the more I think about it, the less sense the Federal child support enforcement program makes. Case in point... a report coming out of the Sacramento, California area "was sentence to 18 Months in federal prison and must pay more than $80,000.00 in restitution for failing to pay court-ordered child support for his young son." (Original Source: KCRA.COM; March 14, 2008; URL=http://www.kcra.com/news/19003642/detail.html)
So the man, named Michael Eugene Lamb, is going into prison at the age of 49, sitting there on a federal conviction, and coming out sometime when he is almost 51 years old. The federal system will charge the taxpayers for his 1.5 year confinement at a cost between $30,000.00 to $50,000.00 depending on the facility and not including any health issues of the confined.
Restitution will not pay the cost of confinement back to the taxpayer, if the man even somehow finds ANY employment when he comes out, due to age discrimination or convict discrimination in the workplace... his 15 years left of employment at a very low-paying job will never pay back the restitution or any money to the taxpayers. In fact, the government would be better off cutting the losses, letting the man go, and giving the kid a $20,000.00 "stimulus check" and say go get them tiger.
Is it just me or does the Federal system not make much sense? I mean the article is quoted as saying "Parents should be held accountable for the
rearing costs of their children and not the taxpayers." Who is still really paying the cost associated with this case. Who knows if the other parent was receiving free welfare benefits during this whole time, so the taxpayers already not once but twice. The system has a lot to answer for, including why so many parents are denied equal access by state courts to their own children despite no finding of incompetence or guilt associated with abandoning or neglecting a child. So many cases are state sanctioned separation at the complete expense of one parent.
I guess I need to keep spreading the word about "Parental rights need to be respected and protected by all" as well as educating the public about turning toward positive parenting solutions rather than draconian and financially driven adversarial proceedings that pit parent against parent. This is, after all, 2009.
