Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118565136
label
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Preliminary Report, October 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118565136
contentType
document
title
[Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board - Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support, Preliminary Report, October 1970
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
Reports
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118565136
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d710da92018760af
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: [Welfare] - State Social Welfare Board -
Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support,
Preliminary Report, October 1970
Box: P39
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
PRESS
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD
Preliminary Report of the Task Force on
ABSENT PARENT CHILD SUPPORT
OF
THE EUREKA THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
Department of Social Welfare
OCTOBER 1970
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-HUMAN RELATIONS AGENCY
RONALD REAGAN, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE - 744 P STREET
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD
SACRAMENTO 95814
September 30, 1970
ROBERT E. MITCHELL, CHAIRMAN
THOMAS G. DAUGHERTY
DR. WALTER W. DOLFINI
MRS. DOROTHY D. NATLAND
ALAN S. RAFFEE
MRS, ALEXANDER RIPLEY
ARTHUR R. TIRADO
SENATOR TOM CARRELL
SENATOR H. L. RICHARDSON
ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN BURTON
ASSEMBLYMAN KENT H. STACEY
JACK W. THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
The Honorable Ronald Reagan
Governor of the State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor Reagan:
Transmitted herewith is the preliminary report of the State
Social Welfare Board's Task Force on Absent Parent Child
Support.
Our interest in child support problems arose from the many
statements of concern and complaints made by citizens at
our public meetings held throughout the State during the
last two years and statistical information, which disclosed
that only twenty percent of the estranged fathers of AFDC
children are contributing to their support.
The task force determined that there is a serious lack of
uniformity in the enforcement of child support obligations
among the counties. Further, many public officials, in-
cluding members of the judiciary, express a total lack of
concern over the fact that countless court orders are un-
enforced and children do not receive the support to which
they are legally entitled.
In addition, many mothers, unable to afford private counsel
to enforce the support obligation, turn to public assistance
because of a lack of prompt and effective child support en-
forcement by public agencies. In this atmosphere, Cali-
fornia is acquiring a reputation as a sanctuary for fathers
who desire to abdicate their primary responsibility of sup-
port of their children, thereby forcing added burdens on
publicly supported welfare programs.
This preliminary report discusses some of the major prob-
lems requiring attention. The task force will be develop-
ing additional information on these points as well as a
Page 2.
number of other related subjects. This is an action-oriented
effort, and the members of the task force have committed
themselves to the task of assisting with the implementation
of the recommendations. When our final report is presented,
we are hopeful that we will have your personal support in
implementing these recommendations.
We believe that a public reawakening to the basic and pri-
mary parental obligation is needed. This can be achieved
only by the making of a firm and clear restatement of our
public policy. This would be the first step in achieving
a basic change in the attitudes of the public and of the
individuals who occupy positions of responsibility in our
public agencies who appear to be unaware of the moral, social
and economic implications of this problem.
To this end this preliminary report is respectfully submit-
ted.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT E. MITCHELL
Chairman
REM:ce
encl.
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD
Preliminary Report of the Task Force on
Absent Parent Child Support
October 1970
MEMBERSHIP LIST
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD
Chairman
Legislative Members
Mr. Robert E. Mitchell
Senator H. L. Richardson
Attorney at Law
Room 3063, State Capitol
P. 0. Box 363
Sacramento, California 95814
Norwalk, California 90650
916/445-3688
213/863-8736
District Office: 359 S. Rosemead Blvd.
Pasadena, Calif. 91107
Members
Senator Tom Carrell
Room 4086, State Capitol
Thomas G. Daugherty
Sacramento, California 95814
Attorney at Law
916/445-3121
5037 Stockton Boulevard
District Office: 753 San Fernando Road
Sacramento, California 95820
San Fernando, Calif. 91340
916/452-3506
Assemblyman John Burton
Dr. Walter W. Dolfini
Room 5144, State Capitol
730 Seventh Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Eureka, California 95501
916/445-8505
707/443-2724 or 443-2061
District Office: 350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, Calif. 94102
Mrs. Dorothy D. Natland
333 Weymouth Place
Assemblyman Kent H. Stacey
Laguna Beach, California 92651
Room 5160, State Capitol
714/494-5331
Sacramento, California 95814
916/445-8490
Mrs. Alexander Ripley
District Office: P. 0. Box 2232
700 North Bundy Drive
Bakersfield, Calif. 93303
Los Angeles, California 90049
213/472-6527
Executive Secretary
Mr. Arthur R. Tirado
838 F Street
Jack W. Thompson
Fresno, California 93706
744 P Street
209/233-6664 or 439-3643
Sacramento, California 95814
916/445-8934
Mr. Alan S. Raffee
Raffee's Carpets
P. 0. Box 10669
San Diego, California 92110
714/583-2323 or 222-7729
4/70
STATE SOCIAL WELFARE BOARD
TASK FORCE ON CHILD SUPPORT
Mr. Robert E. Mitchell
Attorney at Law
P. 0. Box 363
Norwalk, California 90650
213/863-8736
Mr. Thomas G. Daugherty
Attorney at Law
5037 Stockton Boulevard
Sacramento, California 95820
916/452-3506
Honorable Joseph G. Babich
Mrs. Betty Frazier, President
Judge of the Superior Court
ANC Mothers Welfare Rights Organization
Department 6
11411 S. Central Avenue
720 - 9th Street
Los Angeles, California 90059
Sacramento, California 95814
213/564-6049
916/454-0111
Honorable John J. Hunter
Mr. Michael Barber
Ventura County Municipal Court
Deputy District Attorney
242 W. 2nd Street
Domestic Relations Division
Oxnard, California
1901 - 19th Street
805/487-5511
Sacramento, California 95814
916/454-5771
Mr. Robert E. Jornlin, Director
Mrs, Shirley A. Henderson
Contra Costa County Social Service Departmen
Senior Deputy Probation Officer
651 Pine Street
Contra Costa County Probation Department
Martinez, California 94553
938 Main Street
415/228-3000, Ext. 2601
Martinez, California
415/228-3000, Ext. 2748
Mr. Earl Osadchey, Head Deputy
Child Support Division
Mr. Benton Clark
Office of the District Attorney
Training Bureau
849 S. Broadway, 11th Floor
State Department of Social Welfare
Los Angeles, California 90014
744 P Street
213/624-2761
Sacramento, California 95814
916/445-0384
Mr. Richard N. Parslow, Jr.
Deputy District Attorney
Mrs. Gloria F. DeHart
Family Support Division
Deputy Attorney General
P. 0. Box 448
6000 State Building
Santa Ana, California 92702
San Francisco, California
714/834-2174
415/557-0799
Mr. Granville Peoples, Director
Mr. Arlo W. Dehnert, Chief
Orange County Department of Social Welfare
AFDC Bureau
P. 0. Box 1957
State Department of Social Welfare
Santa Ana, California 92702
744 P Street
714/834-2280
Sacramento, California 95814
916/445-6040
-2-
Mr. Richard Peterson, Chief
Family Support Division
P. 0. Box 1912
Fresno, California 93718
209/255-9711, Ext. 645
Warren E. Snell
Sergeant Marshal
720 - 9th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
916/454-5521
Mrs. Jean Temple, President
Association for Children Deprived of Support
8622 Wystone Avenue, #7
Northridge, California 91324
213/886-7245
Mr. Jack W. Thompson, Executive Secretary
State Social Welfare Board
744 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
916/445-8934
Mr. Jon Heinzer, Chief Investigator
Office of the District Attorney
Domestic Relations Division
1901 - 19th Street
Sacramento, California 95814
916/454-5771
Absent Parent Child Support
1. Purpose and Scope of the Problem
Statistics on divorce in California provide some indication of the serious-
ness of this social problem affecting children. One element of the problem
resulting from the breakdown of family life is enforcing the continuing
obligation of parents to support their children. This is the primary moral
and legal obligation of the parents which should only be assumed by others
when circumstances beyond their control prevent the fulfilling of this
responsibility.
The failure to enforce the support obligation of parents has serious economic
ramifications on publicly-supported assistance programs, as well as on the
parent remaining with the children. The Aid to Families with Dependent
Children program has been expanding at an alarming rate with over nine hundred
thousand children in California now receiving assistance. Of those cases involving
an estranged father, eighty percent pay no child support whatsoever leaving
their obligation to be met by the taxpayer.
Statistical information is not readily available with respect to the level of
child support payments to nonwelfare families. Most public agencies restrict
their child support enforcement activities to welfare families. In some cases,
the mother has sufficient means to retain private counsel to aid her in obtain-
ing support for her children. However, in most situations, the mother does not
have these means. Often the line separating nonwelfare mothers from welfare
mothers is thin indeed. Receipt of child support payments on a regular basis
does make the difference.
-2-
The purpose of this preliminary report and subsequent reports by the
State Social Welfare Board's Task Force on Absent Parent Child Support
is to:
a. Impress and persuade the public and concerned agencies with the
nature and magnitude of the absent parent child support problem.
b. Develop more effective remedies to compel enforcement of child
support obligations.
c. Propose model funding and organizational patterns for effective
enforcement units, as well as service units designed to gather
and disseminate information needed in enforcement work.
d. Point up the need for continuing efforts to achieve greater
coordination among those agencies and individuals involved in
child support enforcement activities.
e. Encourage state and local governments to place greater importance
on this problem and to devote more resources to its resolution.
2. Attitudes and Education
Concern is expressed at the cavalier attitudes on the subject of child support
expressed by some individuals whose work responsibilities put them in daily
contact with persons affected by the problem. Some of these individuals believe
that child support is punitive and that public assistance programs were designed
as a more acceptable alternative to the enforcement of parents' responsibility.
This attitude has become more pervasive in recent years. This abdication of
parental responsibility eats away at the moral fiber of society; promotes
dependency on public programs; interferes with parent/child relationships and
places a huge and inequitable fiscal impact upon our taxpayers.
-3-
Recommendation #1
There should be a clear restatement of public policy that parents have
primary responsibility for the care and support of their children and
that a family breakdown, separation, divorce or private dispute does
not absolve them of this moral and legal obligation. This obligation
exists whether the child was born to parents who are married or not.
There are a number of individuals and agencies at all levels of government
who have an official involvement in the problem of absent parent child
support. These include:
a. District Attorney's Offices
b. County Welfare Departments
C. Probation Departments
d. The Judiciary
e. Public Agencies Responsible for Service of Process
f. Boards of Supervisors
g. State Department of Social Welfare
The complex interrelationship of these government entities compounds efforts
at problem-solving and underscores the need for coordination. Each group
involved needs to have a clear understanding of its role and responsibilities,
and an awareness and knowledge of the function performed by others in the
network. The effective functioning of a number of agencies can be negated by
the failure or lack of interest on the part of any single agency involved.
Recommendation #2
There is a need for the development of a positive attitude on the part
of all public agencies involved in the process of the enforcement of
child support obligations, including members of the judiciary. A default
by one of these individuals or agencies will result in the failure of the
entire system.
3. Identification and Location
Prompt action is the key to an effective support enforcement effort. The first
step is to ascertain the location of the absent nonsupporting parent. A number
of resources are available at the local and state levels to assist in locating
-4-
absent parents. In recent years, certain federal records have been made
available for this purpose. However, the system for extracting information
from federal records is cumbersome and this resource is not effectively used
at this time.
In 1953 a Central Registry was created in the Office of the Attorney General
for the purpose of providing a focal point through which local agencies could
channel requests for information from various state agencies. This unit
functioned as a part of the Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation
which was also an information-contributing agency, along with the State
Departments of Motor Vehicles and Human Resources Development.
Increased use of the Central Registry service by agencies of county government,
lack of centralized responsibility for initiating requests for information,
duplicatory requests and staff shortages have combined to hamper the Central
Registry's ability to respond to information requests on a timely basis.
Inquiries have increased from 1500 to 5000 per month. The current backlog runs
between 5000 and 9000 inquiries and response time averages about 90 days.
Approximately 60% of the workload relates to welfare cases, with about 1% of
the inquiries coming from out of state under reciprocity agreements with other
jurisdictions.
A subcommittee of the task force was appointed to work with representatives of
the Office of the Attorney General and the Central Registry who have long
demonstrated their interest in providing an effective service. A key
recommendation of this group was that the Central Registry should be designated
-5-
as an organizational entity separate and apart from the Bureau of Criminal
Identification & Investigation. We are pleased to report that this
organizational change was adopted by order of the Attorney General effective
October 1, 1970.
The task force recognizes child support enforcement as primarily a law
enforcement problem. The records of law enforcement agencies at the county
level and their sources of information are of value in locating absent parents.
The utilization of these sources of information will reduce the volume of
unnecessary inquiries to the Central Registry. In addition, centralizing
responsibility for making inquiries to the Central Registry will avoid
duplicatory inquiries.
Recommendation #3
Responsibility for originating Central Registry inquiries should be
placed with District Attorney's Offices throughout the state, regardless
of the placement of the Family Support Division in the county organization
structure (district attorney's offices or county welfare departments).
Currently, the Central Registry obtains information from the records of three
state agencies to aid in locating absent nonsupporting parents. It is suggested
that a similar relationship could be developed with other agencies and that the
Central Registry could represent an important time-saving link in obtaining
information from federal records. Such a change in the operations of the
Central Registry should be accomplished by means of a demonstration project with a
built-in evaluation component to test the effectiveness of this new format on
the basis of input data from local child support enforcement units. In connection
with the following recommendation, a letter of intent has been filed with the
State Director of Social Welfare and task force members are negotiating for the
funding of such a project with 50% federal matching.
-6-
Recommendation #4
The operations of the Central Registry should be changed to
incorporate new approaches to its service function including
linkage to federal information sources. This should be
accomplished through funding provided by State Department of
Social Welfare demonstration project funding, with federal
matching, and should include an appropriate evaluation
component for the purpose of testing the effectiveness of
new approaches.
The small staff assigned to Central Registry is state funded. The 1967
Amendments to the Social Security Act provided for 50% federal reimbursement
for extended effort beyond activities in a base period in the field of child
support enforcement and establishing paternity. Since approximately 60% of
Central Registry's workload is related to welfare cases, it is likely that
some federal funds could be made available for this unit's extended effort
beyond the base period. With respect to the following recommendation,
members of the task force have started negotiations aimed at acquiring
federal participation in the funding of part of the Central Registry's workload.
Recommendation #5
An effort should be made to obtain federal participation in the
funding of the Central Registry based on the provisions of the
1967 Amendments to the Social Security Act.
4. Procedure - Welfare/District Attorney
The major objective of a suitable child support program is to promptly and
efficiently secure the maximum support possible from the legally responsible
parent (usually the father), whether or not the child is in need of public
assistance. In order to achieve its prime objective, the program and
administrative areas must be balanced to provide for law enforcement and
collections in a businesslike manner.
-7-
The auspices must be clear, the focus of responsibility definitively
placed, and the program consolidated in operations under a single
administrative unit. The administrative philosophy of such a unit then is
that "the buck stops here."
Uncertainty by the aggrieved mother and by many public servants as to which
agency or department is responsible, and the lack of uniformity among the
respective counties dictate that there exists a model organizational plan of
enforcement. This organizational plan must be known to the agencies involved and
publicized to the general public.
The model plan for an effective enforcement program must be comprehensive in
scope, inclusive of the following components as to child support activities:
a. Intake
b. Enforcement
(1) Investigations
(2) Probation
(3) Civil
C. Collections
Associated with such a plan as an additional function, under the primary
auspices of the district attorney or county welfare department, may be units
dealing with all aspects of fraud relating to public assistance programs.
The specific components and elements of a model comprehensive child support
enforcement plan will be outlined in a future report of the task force. This
plan will be applicable to less populous counties, as well as those California
counties with large populations. The model plan will address itself to:
-8-
a. A description and delineation of the interrelationships of
affected county agencies.
b. The forms and procedures for a sound child support system for
incorporation in a computerized system, if possible.
There will be a defined approach as to external related functions not directly
connected to child support as part of the total system. The district attorneys
and law enforcement elements will be expected to use all possible legal remedies.
The ideal arrangement is one centralized operational unit located in one place
in the county. However, it is recognized that organizational areas must reflect
the size and degree of the spread of the population. Special job classification
and adequate employment criteria will be developed as part of the plan. While
the plan will suggest local option in placing the child support unit in either
the district attorney's office or the county welfare department, it will clearly
reflect the view of the task force members that child support is a law enforcement
problem and responsibility must be fixed at one point.
Following development and adoption of the model plan, it is suggested that action
be taken to rewrite and distribute the Attorney General's publication, "Enforcement
Officers' Manual and Guide to the Absent Parent Problem in California."
There will be need for widespread knowledge and discussion of the model child
support enforcement plan if it is to stimulate the interest of those who will
work with it. Support for the plan and increased enforcement effort can be
effectively achieved through public appearances before boards of supervisors
pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of alternative plans which can
contribute to reductions in county property taxes. Related to this, the task
force and the State Social Welfare Board supported AB 1648 and is gratified that
the Governor has signed this significant legislation into law.
-9-
Recommendation #6
Following acceptance of the model plan, teams should visit counties
for the purpose of appearing before boards of supervisors and
acquainting them with the advantages of an effective support program.
Teams should consist of representatives of the County Supervisors
Association, State Social Welfare Board, District Attorneys Association,
State Department of Social Welfare and other involved agencies.
5. Legal Remedies
A family breakup is a crisis of serious magnitude. Relationships between
the adults are severely strained and often domestic anarchy exists within
what remains of the family unit. In this tense emotional climate, bad
attitudes and poor habits with respect to parental responsibilities can be
formed. For the continued welfare of the children and to insure that
appropriate attention is given to their care and support, early and effective
steps must be taken to compel the attention of both parents to their rights
and responsibilities with respect to the children.
In order to have effective compliance with the court's order for support, the
order itself must be realistic in relation to the financial ability of the
father. The Judge should have the advantage of the presence of both parents
in court at the initial proceeding to insure a complete and accurate disclosure
of the parents' financial ability. On this occasion, the court should also
define and explain the rights and responsibilities of each of the parents to
the children, including the husband's right of visitation as well as the husband's
obligation to obey the court order.
Recommendation #7
The law should be modified to require the presence of both parents in
any proceedings involving the children or their support and to provide
the statutory power to subpoena parents who fail to appear.
-10-
Except in unusual circumstances, a financial crisis usually accompanies
the breakup of a family. Creditors are often threatening and the parent
remaining at home is sometimes hard-pressed to keep utility service and
rent paid. This period of time immediately following the family breakup
poses serious problems for the parent to provide the necessities of life
for the children. Present judicial processes are too slow to provide for
support of the children during this critical period. What is needed is a
prompt remedy to establish a fixed support obligation during this crucial
period.
Recommendation #8
The law should be modified to provide for the necessary forms and
procedures whereby upon separation, but prior to the initiation of
a Petition for Dissolution or Separation, a 3-day (court days) order
to show cause could be filed in pro per. The citation would command
the defendant's appearance for the purpose of fixing child support,
and would be personally served on him or on his employer if he cannot
be immediately located or if it is shown he is evading service. At
the time of the hearing, both parents should be instructed as to their
rights and responsibilities towards one another and the effect of their
new relationship on the children. The court would be empowered to set
temporary child support and make such other temporary orders to secure
the stability of the parties. Counselling and efforts to reconcile
the parties at this time would be authorized. It appears that the
conciliation court would be the effective forum for this service. In
our final report, the task force intends to set out the specific
components of such a quasi legal remedy.
Recommendation #9
Upon the filing of a Petition of Dissolution, or Petition for Separation,
the law would provide a 3-day (court days) Order to Show Cause procedure
in those cases in which child support was an issue. Such cases would
have a priority on the court's calendar. Continuance would be granted
for purpose of obtaining counsel only, and then not to exceed 3 days.
It would require the attendance of both parties. If one of the parties
avoided service, then service of process could be made upon the employer.
An ex parte order for child support could be made upon the employer
where the party fails to appear in court.
-11-
Recommendation #10
To provide for effective enforcement of existing court orders, the
law should be modified to permit mother to make application to
court to obtain a forthwith order for enforcement of child support
order, or husband to show cause why within 3 days (court days) he
should not obey existing court order. Mother must show in her verified
petition that father has failed to make support payment within last
30 days, or made only token payment; that she has actual physical
possession of child or children, that she is without resources for the
necessities of life; and that father is employed or is self employed
and that she has reason to believe he has the ability to comply with
the court order. She must further allege that she has requested
payment and that father has refused or failed to pay.
The "Forthwith Order" may be served upon the employer should father
avoid service. This would be deemed to be service upon father and
notice to employer that there existed a lien upon husband's wages in
that amount set by the court, and employer instructed not to pay over
to father said sum until further instructed by court. Said lien could
not exceed one-half of father's net wages.
The judiciary has ultimate responsibility for fixing child support payments.
Acting under the provisions of Section 11476 of the California Welfare and
Institutions Code, county welfare departments occasionally negotiate voluntary
agreements with nonsupporting fathers to pay child support at less than the
amount specified in the order. This action most often results from an attempt
to get at least some part of the support obligation paid or from a support
order which exceeds the ability of the responsible parent. These voluntary
agreements confuse the issue since the agreement does not absolve the parent
from responsibility for the unpaid amount of support.
Recommendation #11
The fixing and collection of child support should be based on the court's
order. Section 11476, Welfare and Institutions Code, should be amended
and the practice of welfare agencies making voluntary agreements for the
payment of child support should be eliminated.
-12-
6. Resources
Federal law and regulation have long been a barrier to collecting absent
parent child support from federal employees, retired employees and members
of the military. The following proposals are designed to provide the means
of enforcing support from these individuals who, because of the nature of
their employment, receive protection not afforded to others in similar
circumstances, to the detriment of their children and the taxpaying public.
Recommendation #12
Notwithstanding the doctrine of sovereign immunity, federal legislation
should be enacted to provide for garnishment and execution of wages of
federal employees, retired employees and members of the military as
well as wage assignment for the purpose of collecting child support.
Recommendation #13
Section 464 of HR 16311 should be eliminated and provisions be
substituted which would enable local agencies to take action with
respect to unpaid child support for moneys owed to nonsupporting
parents by the federal government, i.e., income tax refunds.
Reimbursement of funds collected would be consistent with the
funding formula.
Recommendation #14
Federal statutes and Department of Defense regulations should be
changed to provide for support of an illegitimate child who is
acknowledged by the father or legitimated by court order so as to
be consistent with the Social Security Act.
7. Future Work of the Task Force
The task force is continuing its work on each of the subjects discussed in
this report and additional information will be reported as the work progresses.
A subgroup of the task force is working on the subject of collections. We
will propose a series of techniques and approaches which have proven most
successful in child support activities for the guidance of agencies who would
use this resource to upgrade their activities.
-13-
A subgroup is working on the feasibility and desirability of a family
court concept.
The thought has been advanced that a higher level of support contributions
would be received voluntarily if the absent father recognized that his
children received some direct benefit from his payments. Under present
welfare procedures, absent parent contributions to children on welfare are
either used to offset the grant or, in some jurisdictions, to make up the
difference between the grant and the established need. Members of the
task force are working in this area in an effort to propose some type of
approach which would represent an incentive to the absent father.