Women at work and their tips, challenges, advice, complaints, and experiences

Back in October, I brought up an issue regarding the State of Washington's decision to charge custodial parents a $25 annual fee for services rendered in child support enforcement cases.  I later further explained my irritation with the state and further expressed my concerns for low-income custodial parents (please note the word parents, not "mothers" - I'm a smidge tired of being accused of calling all non-custodial fathers deadbeats when I didn't do it).

Anywho, here's more fuel to my fire, thanks to a recent article in the Monterey Military News.  They state:

"Beginning Oct. 1, families in several states were required to start paying $25 annually if their states had collected at least $500 for child support on their behalf.  Those states included Oregon, Washington, South Carolina, Iowa, Idaho and Virginia.  Some states have already begun collecting the fee.

"All states are responsible for collecting the fee according to the Congressional mandate.  States have the option of paying the costs, charging the custodial parent or charging the non-custodial parent.  [Emphasis mine.]  At least three states, California, Florida and West Virginia, have announced they will absorb the $25 cost.  The majority of states have opted to make the custodial parent pay."

So now we finally get a bit more information about what commenter David Zwald referred to regarding states receiving federal funds - if anyone is aware of better links for learning about this "Congressional mandate", be sure to leave a comment for us all to research the matter further.  As for the emphasis I've added regarding who the states are allowed to charge: yet again I question why the states don't split the fee between both parents.  That's how child support is supposed to be figured - both parents are "supposed" to be paying for the child's room, board, and educational costs.  Why are custodians (hey, let's be fair, there are even GRANDparents out there with custody of family members' children!) being charged the fee instead of the states splitting it equally or fairly (by percentage of income)?  Kudos to California, Florida and West Virginia for not passing along the fee - but if parents are going to be assessed it should be fair and equitable; it shouldn't be placed on just custodial or non-custodial parents.  The fee should be split.  But as commenter Danae pointed out, it's much easier for the state to forcibly collect the fee before handing over funds due to a custodian than it is for them to collect it from a non-custodian in a forced garnishment situation. 

Either way it's $25 less that the children themselves will receive in support because the state is taking it.  I'd really love some further information on exactly how much the states charging custodians are keeping for themselves of the aforementioned federal funds....have exact numbers by state, anyone?  Anyone?

(And no, that adorable little boy in the picture isn't mine - though my infant son does look a smidge like that.  :-)  That image is courtesy of GarrisonPhoto.org, via StockXchng photos.  Isn't it a wonderful photo?)