Is our country on the verge of a new epidemic left over from an old regime? Bankruptcy, joblessness, and incarceration have become synonymous with divorce and child custody proceedings. Could outrageous child support awards be one of the culprits?

Deadbeat dads are the scourge of our nation, or so the government would have you believe. Married parents determine how much above the minimum they spend on their children. Divorced or single parents get told by the government how much above the minimum they must spend on their children. When they can’t pay this “extra” above the minimum charge, they are branded deadbeats and shamed by the entire community while poor married parents receive sympathy and help from the government.

Some smart political marketers have set this phrase and the social derision associated with it to generating more cash for the government through Title IV D of the Social Security act. Cunning State politicians take more and more time away from one fit parent to justify charging more and more “elective” child support on the disadvantaged parent. State coffers are filled while children lose their emotional and financial stability and a fit parent from their lives. Fit “deadbeat” parents are taken from their children and jailed by the thousands because they can’t afford to pay this “elective” child support.

What does our country value more for children “cash” or the love and support of two equal fit parents in the child’s life?

The consequence of convincing the mainstream public that this was for the children is that no one noticed the growing poverty now striking children of middle class families. Perhaps part of the reason the number of families in poverty has climbed since these policies were passed. .[i]  And, by the way, most of the children in these impoverished family households are one-parent households Imagine that. Children who had parents that were stable, strong financially, and successful prior to divorce are being destroyed and brought down by these policies. States are scrambling to blame parents who divorce for the problem instead of blaming state policies that financially punish parents who can no longer remain married to each other but who each love and want to directly care for and support their children.

The failed state policy of punishing parents for divorcing has become too large of a failure to remain covered up. The best interests of the child AS DECIDED BY THE STATE is the lie that supports this failed state policy. The state is systematically destroying the one thing that has proven to be best for children–a strong parent-child bond–and is blaming parents for the harm the state is causing to children, and using our children as their cash cow[ii]

You can stop the corrupt State from harming your child when you divorce. Keep reading to find out what we think will solve this problem.

Can Capping Divorce Incentives Strengthen Marriages?

I believe that it can. It can also reduce the incentive for corrupt practices. Let me explain.

As with many things that have become part of our culture and tradition, we see many people try to solve the wrong problem. A few months back, Divorce Corp. ran a poll and asked “Should a parent receiving child support be required to produce receipts verifying expenditures for the child?”[i] Perhaps it was Patrick Glynn’s suggestion to them that capping child support would eliminate the need for receipts that got them to look at the problem a little differently. In fact, they went on to make the following statements:

  • Child support should be capped at the minimum amount needed to raise a child.
  • The state should not serve the best interests of the children of wealthy parents more so than the children of parents of modest means (e.g. every child merits the same amount of child support).
  • The state should get out of the business of raising Federal matching funds at the expense of the mental health of our children.
  • The courts should stop dangling children in front of desperate parents in order to incentivize them to pay legal fees.
  • The state should stop making value judgments between two competent parents in order to label one “custodial” and the other “non-custodial”. This is an outdated social model that wreaks of inequality. The state should not perpetuate this model in order to keep its flow of Federal matching funds.[ii]
  • [Go to the end of this post if you want to join Divorce Corp, Ron B Palmer, and me, Sherry Palmer at the Reform Conference in November 2014. Or just click here and I’ll take you there to register now: REFORM CONFERENCE]

Not only are these very wise statements, the majority of them could be accomplished through the power of your current constitutional rights! So basically, the way that child support is being handled now could be challenged constitutionally.

Let’s break it down a little more. The first statement, bullet point one:

  • Child support should be capped at the minimum amount needed to raise a child.

You could argue against the current child support scheme as being unconstitutional as it fails the equal protection requirements. [See equal protection argument on our website][iii]

The next bullet point from Divorce Corp. poll #5 “Should Parents Who Receive Child Support Be Required to Produce Receipts” reads:

  • The state should not serve the best interests of the children of wealthy parents more so than the children of parents of modest means (e.g. every child merits the same amount of child support).

Okay if you know me, then you know I cringe when I see best interest referred to in this way, but I’ll leave it alone for now since we are talking about child support. Well just one quick comment, anytime best interest is combined with the notion that the State is serving the interest of the child at all, I have to just scream for a minute. You’ll understand if you are in our classes.[iv] Once you start to see bias you realize that you had some yourself that you were blind to as well.[v] I’m sure that I made those errors when I first started learning all of this, and I’m sure I’ll make them again. It is so deeply engrained in us to think the way we were brought up to believe. I feel like such a rebel right now, but so free at the same time.

Now that I got that out of my system. Apologies to those of you that cannot stand when people diverge from the topic. I try to keep my writing focused. Back to the statement that the State should not be ordering more support for a child from a wealthy family than one that is not so well off. And as I mentioned above this could be argued with our second-class citizen argument at this link: Rights Made Simple.

The State since around 1973 has not been allowed to make a person or a child a second-class citizen. When the State orders that one child requires more in child support than another, this is essentially what they are doing. And until the States can argue more than just “best interest of the child” authorizes them to do this, we will stand by our statement that forcing parents to support their children based on their level of income is unconstitutional. And you can stand by that too by attaching the Rights Made Simple argument to your family court arguments. (And, by the way, the Social Security Title IV-D was passed in 1975. Yes, I know that President Ford was then president at that time. The scheme had to be created and discussed and everything else that a Bill has to go through before it becomes law during Nixon’s time.)*

In addition, when a State makes an order for a parent to maintain their earning level to pay that support the State also infringes upon several other constitutional rights of that parent and child. You can read our book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest” for more on those infringements of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 13th, and 14th amendment.

In short, these types of orders do not allow a parent to truly break away from the decisions that they made in the marriage. They prevent that parent from ever again having the right to make their own decisions. And also prevents and prohibits a parent from seeking additional education, career changes, as well as downgrading their financial status to live as a pauper if they choose. People like Warren Buffet, billionaire, and Sam Walton, also a billionaire chose to raise their children in frugality. If either of them had gone through a divorce then they would have been required to support their children at a billionaire’s expected lifestyle that may not align with their beliefs and values. I hope you are beginning to see how one court practice can infringe on many rights, giving you a substantial complaint that rises to the level of overturning these courts on appeal.

  • The state should get out of the business of raising Federal matching funds at the expense of the mental health of our children.

This one is loaded and I really like that it ties the mental health of the children to their deprivation of a parent that the State justifies when they create two unequal parents with unequal time with the child just to award child support. Additionally, you could use our arguments that this incentivizes the State to use more bias and prejudice in coming to their conclusion, drives them to choose one parent over the other, and drives their conflict between the State’s duty to protect each parent-child relationship and their duty to protect a child.

When they use best interest as their legal reasoning for choosing one parent over the other they are using this as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that they did not have the authority to do so – the Social Security Act Title IV D does not grant them authority to sweep your rights under the rug. Best Interest of the child is not a magical incantation allowing the State to take over all of yours and your child’s rights.

  • The courts should stop dangling children in front of desperate parents in order to incentivize them to pay legal fees.

We agree. Your Constitutional rights and your child’s constitutional rights takes your child out of the middle and protects you from this abuse of power. Plus that eliminates some of the incentives for attorneys to encourage parents to rip the children from the other parent.

  • The state should stop making value judgments between two competent parents in order to label one “custodial” and the other “non-custodial”. This is an outdated social model that wreaks of inequality. The state should not perpetuate this model in order to keep its flow of Federal matching funds.

We agree again. And once again this is not allowed for the State to do this unless you authorize them to do this or they prove you unfit. [Watch this video on how a father who was incarcerated beat the State and maintained the right to decide what was best for his child here: Challenging the family courts.]

The Social Security Title IV-D scheme I believe was originally sold to the American people as a way to keep children off of welfare. However, this has failed since most people who are impoverished don’t and cannot pay child support in the first place. Once a State or federal scheme has proven to fail to accomplish its stated purpose, the scheme must be abandoned. The States have failed to change this practice. (Of note,  is that when Social Security is determining who to pay benefits to for a child, they do use primary parent as a determining factor. Keep this in mind for future posts where we discuss how deeply ingrained and perpetuated the biases are surrounding custodial and noncustodial labeling.) I’m also pretty sure that those that bought into this program and scheme had no idea that they might become victim to this as well. Karma maybe, but more likely they were duped and had no idea that they would be facing something bigger. (Okay just one more comment here, you’d think they would have been more suspicious knowing that Richard Nixon was the President in office when this scheme was being created! Who would have thought this at the time though when he was such a big supporter of the equal rights amendment for women, and desegregation, etc., right? That’s the way twisted policies get through, you get focused on what you think is good.)

And further, the practice has proven to be extremely harmful to children, just look at the study that came out of Massachusetts General Hospital.[vi] Children that are suffering one parent being a part-time parent in their life are suffering the same disorders and symptoms of children that have had a parent terminated. To the young person there is no difference between deprivation and termination. But again that’s another topic for a different post.

Perhaps, the State’s have not changed their practices because they are making too much money and for the state, money is more important than the actual welfare of the children. Which is precisely why the U.S. Supreme Court has said time and time again that fit parents determine the best interest of their child. They are the ones that would sacrifice their life and everything in it, as parents demonstrate every day when they give more than they have and end up homeless and some of them so devastated unable to go on another day knowing that they were unable to continue to protect their child. But instead of standing in front of bullets from a gun their child has been attacked by the family court policies and practices. The parents standing in front of these bullets are the ones standing by their constitutional fundamental parental rights and their child’s.

“”The Law of the Few”, or, as Malcolm Gladwell states, “The success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts”.” You must be one or you wouldn’t have read this post. Become part of the pareto effect and join Patrick Glynn, Divorce Corp., us and many other “rare” people with “social gifts” that are part of the 80/20 making a difference. It just takes a few to make a big difference in November. [RESERVE YOUR SEAT]

November 14, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. we will be at the State Capitol steps telling the world that we are finished with this tyrannical reign destroying our children and families.

Click here today and take your family life back from the family courts at the Lost Generation Rally:

Immediately following, we will be at the Reform Conference on November 15-16, 2014.

Click here to register for the Reform Conference and to get hotel discounts. Hurry before they are gone:

When you get your flight, remember to come in the day before and join us at the rally.

In the meantime, read our book and learn your parental rights so they cannot take advantage of you and your child so easily anymore. We look forward to seeing you in November! [CLICK HERE to get the Parental Rights book “NOT in The Child’s Best Interest.]


[i] Welfare. The poverty numbers have grown since the passage of the new welfare policies not declined. accessed 9 September 2014.

[ii] The Divorce Corp. movie exposes these practices. Click here if you have not seen it or you want a copy of your own to show to your lawmaker, your Mayor, Governor, D.A., neighbors, and teachers so they know what is really happening:

[iii] Divorce Corp website  Accessed on 1 September 2014.

[iv] Ibid. The excerpted bullet points are from the Divorce Corp. website:  Go there if you would like to see their poll results and read more from their post.]

[v] The equal protection article can be found here:

[vi] Get more information about classes on parental rights here:

[vii] Get the book on parental rights and learn how to recognize your own biases and get rid of the things that are preventing you from getting the results you want here:

[viii] Massachusetts General Hospital statistics on children who have a custodial and noncustodial parent: Statistical info from Massachusetts General Hospital Research w amy bake…