Enforcing Child Custody Orders

Re: “Children Have a Right to Support,” Ventura County Perspective, Aug. 16.

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury spins the usual half-truths in his commentary by describing Title IV-D as a “child support” program.

IV-D was created by Congress for the principal purpose of reimbursing the treasury for welfare payments to unemployed mothers, historically on the condition that they break off relations with fathers. Recently, it has been expanded to cover child support and alimony collection, but it still does not enforce custody orders.

Welfare reimbursement does not encourage fathers to support their children; it encourages father absence while preventing us from supporting our children by redirecting our assets into the federal treasury.

Of course, most fathers with ex-wives or girlfriends on welfare prefer to pay under the table; it’s the only way we can get our money to our children!

The California District Attorneys Assn.’s prime legislative objective this year is defeating AB 1961 by Assemblywoman Dion Aroner (D-Berkeley), a measure establishing accountability for the IV-D program. This bill is supported by both the Assn. of Children for the Enforcement of Support and the Coalition of Parent Support--California’s major advocacy groups for divorced mothers and fathers, respectively.

If Mr. Bradbury wants to become an advocate for children, he might begin by fighting for parents and not against us.

RICHARD BENNETT, Vice President, Coalition of Parent Support, Cupertino

*

Re: “Enforcing Child Support,” letter, Aug. 23.

This letter shows some quite common sentiments that illustrate typical flaws in the thinking of politicians.

Research clearly shows that kids need both parents. The single most dangerous factor to children is growing up in a single-parent household. Raising children is a full-time job. It is tough enough when two parents are raising children and each is working a full-time job, but it is impossible for a single parent to accomplish this without sacrificing child rearing.

The letter writer’s daily struggles would surely be lessened by having the father take physical custody of their child(ren) 50% of the time. Why doesn’t she suggest this? Why does she just want money? Has the father been forced out of the child’s life by the district attorney’s threats?

It is in the the best interest of the child(ren) to be raised by both parents. It is also their right. Parents have a responsibility to raise their children. Eliminate child support and require shared parenting--where each parent equally shares physical and legal custody of the child(ren). Now there’s no incentive to play games and use children as pawns in these greed and revenge games.

JOHN SMITH, National Coordinator, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights, Beverly Hills