Child Support Collections

Re “In 9 of 10 Child Support Cases, D.A. Comes Up Empty-Handed,” Oct. 11: Your article about the computer-generated confiscation of money from people who no longer owe it, the 350 erroneous cases added monthly to the backlog by the Los Angeles County district attorney’s child support collection project and the errors in collecting and distributing money is frightening. It proves the adage: “To err is human; to really mess up requires a computer.” It would be almost humorous if the district attorney and the civil courts did not continue to extract payment of child support even when a man is proven not to be the biological father, or to close cases when the true father is right under their noses. How can this be allowed to continue?

And lawyers, judges and lawmakers wonder why average citizens have no faith in the “system” anymore!

BARBARA SIEGMAN, Van Nuys

*

Your series (Oct. 11-13) on child support enforcement in Los Angeles County was misleading, inaccurate and unfair to the hardworking employees of the district attorney’s Bureau of Family Support Operations. The reporters’ reliance on outdated statistics and their total failure to address the $250,000 Price Waterhouse management audit of BFSO and the soon-to-open Child Support Call Center make clear that your series was never intended to be fair or accurate. Most important, documentation was provided to your reporters that BFSO obtains support in roughly 20%-21% of it cases, directly in line with the reported national average of 21%.

I am not satisfied, nor are the employees of BFSO, and we are committed to continuing to improve child support collection efforts. BFSO’s most recent performance, in fiscal year 1997-1998, far outstripped the performance of the state as a whole: BFSO collections increased over 21% while the state (without L.A. County) increased only 11%. BFSO also has more than doubled its staff in the last five years. Contrary to your series, the computer system has been lauded by Price Waterhouse, the state, the federal government and The Times when you wrote, “The county has a computerized tracking system--a necessity the state still has not implemented” (April 19).

We are aware of no facts to support any allegation that BFSO employees have destroyed documents to somehow inflate BFSO performance indicators.

Finally, our preliminary review of the case histories cited in the series demonstrates that they are riddled with errors. The following is just one example. Hasson (Hassan) Husser is depicted as the “victim” of long delays in the handling of cases at the downtown criminal court. Husser is not a victim. Husser owes almost $29,000 in child support and made only one payment of support prior to our filing of criminal charges against him. Husser was convicted and sentenced in July. Despite his record, Husser’s first payment following his sentencing was made with a bad check! There is currently a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

In conclusion, the district attorney’s Bureau of Family Support Operations is committed to continuing to improve.

GIL GARCETTI, District Attorney, Los Angeles County

*

Doesn’t it make more sense to put some of the $100 million spent on the collection of child support into family therapy and mandated mediation? Shouldn’t the hope of all of us be that with professional help, couples can work their problems out and stay together? And when divorce can’t be avoided, isn’t it better to help the couple arrive at solutions so that child support is likely to be paid?

As a former social agency director where mandated divorce mediation was one of the services we provided, agreements on child support were honored in almost every instance. Ninety percent of divorces where divorce mediation was offered nationally had agreements which were still honored more than three years after the divorce. The lack of success of the Los Angeles County child support program should convince us that keeping families together and helping couples rationally resolve their problems is a far more effective way of providing for children.

MORLEY GLICKEN, Professor of Social Work, Cal State San Bernardino

*

Your article on Garcetti’s office didn’t go far enough describing the plight of fathers. I personally pay an amount that doesn’t allow me to afford a place to live, while my ex-wife owns her own home in Long Beach. As a union electrician, I had several lengthy unemployed streaks, none of which were of my doing. I attempted on a couple of occasions to have my support payments reduced, but Garcetti’s attorneys represented my ex, fighting my effort. Question: Why did the county represent her? I had to pay an attorney!

I was convicted in municipal court of nonpayment of child support. All of this time I was unemployed. The first-time offender normally receives trash pickup on the freeways; I was scheduled for six months, minimum.

I haven’t seen or had any contact with my children since 1994. My ex was able to convince a kangaroo court that I molested my children. This is the only court around that accepts hearsay evidence as fact, “to protect the children.”

You haven’t scratched the surface with the abuses that Garcetti and his minions have perpetrated against the fathers of L.A. County.

PAUL VITALE, Lancaster

*

I represent an affected faction that is rarely mentioned--the man who marries a woman who is unable to collect child support, the stepfather. I want to address those persons who might feel some sympathy toward deadbeat fathers who are complaining that they are overpaying. These men knew they fathered children and refused to support them. These men were finally located and employment verified and they still did not pay. These men received a civil judgment against them and still did not pay. These man had criminal charges filed against them and still did not pay. It was only the fear of going to jail and garnishment of wages that got these men to pay.

If these men had lived up to their responsibilities from the outset, the courts would have never been involved and all involved parties would have benefited from it. So pardon me if I don’t sympathize with these men.

ALEX WING, Los Angeles

*

When it comes to misdeeds by elected officials, the willful withholding of child support from eligible children and ruination caused by known collection “mistakes” constitute a higher crime than consensual extramarital sex. Impeach Garcetti!

LISA HARRIS, Sierra Madre

*

I happen to have knowledge of the D.A.’s office problems concerning child support collection and distribution because of a young mother our church helps.

She spent three years trying to get a court order to compel her ex-husband to pay the child support the divorce court ordered. She could not afford an attorney, so she finally went through the D.A.’s office. The court issued an order for him to pay through the D.A.’s office last December. Several months later she got one payment. After that, nothing. Many calls to the office 800 number and messages left resulted in no calls back and no help. When she finally connected with someone, her case was so confused they couldn’t figure it out. He had sent in money, but for some reason they hadn’t or couldn’t forward it to her.

She works 10-12 hours a day, six days a week, cleaning houses or toilets to put food on the table and gas in her car. There is never enough money for medical or dental expenses (the church has paid some of her medical bills). When her two boys are out of school, she must take them with her on her cleaning jobs because she can’t afford baby-sitters.

LARRY FOGG, Burbank

*

Garcetti’s management of his department, specifically pertaining to child support cases as featured in your Sunday report, is criminal. His and his staff’s repeated pursuit and harassment of innocent people is horrifying. Garcetti should be held personally responsible and liable for his department’s obstruction of justice, harassment and wrongful prosecution.

Further, if Garcetti’s statement that his department’s automated computer tracking system is the best in the nation, then God help the rest of the nation.

CATHY HARMAN, Downey

*

I was shocked and angry after reading about the county’s district attorney’s family support bureau. It is unbelievable that Garcetti can defend his agency’s horrible performance and immoral tactics. He should spend as much energy correcting some of the problems as he does defending his failure. Why doesn’t the Board of Supervisors do something?

PAUL GREENOUGH, Saugus

*

Your Oct. 13 editorial missed the point. The problem is not that parents aren’t paying child support. The problem is that people have been sold on the myth that all it takes to raise a child well is money. The problem is that family law focuses solely on money instead of increased parental involvement. What good does it do to “get tough” with fathers, running them into poverty and homelessness? Now everyone is worse off.

Our child support system is full of perverse incentives. If you believe money solves child poverty (which it doesn’t) and solving child poverty ensures healthy children (it won’t), then why aren’t there strict accountability audits in place to require custodial parents to document how and where the child support was spent?

JOHN SMITH, Research Analyst, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights, Beverly Hills

*

Your articles about child support cases and the D.A.’s office are interesting but unlikely to cause any change for the better. The media, the vested interests that fund political campaigns, the voting public, the courts, Garcetti, et al. are much more interested in heavy-duty crime than the absent-parent problems of poor moms and of the mostly low-income defendants, often mistakenly accused of paternity or of not paying child support.

What has resulted is a local version of the IRS, whose judgments and orders are almost always rubber-stamped by the courts. Things will remain the same or even get worse until the entire system is overhauled to afford easier access to hearings by the moms as well as by those accused of paternity or of not paying child support, and legislation or precedent is established that would hold the county legally liable for the intentional misconduct or gross neglect by the D.A.’s office.

RICHARD A. WEINSTOCK, Former L.A. Legal Aid Attorney, Ventura