MEANINGFUL SUPPORT FOR OUR CHILDREN

No reasonable person would argue that money is unnecessary when raising a child.

Children need food. They need clothing. They need housing, education, healthcare, transportation, and countless other things that require financial resources.

But money alone does not raise a child.

A child also needs love.

A child needs consistency.

A child needs emotional security.

A child needs encouragement, guidance, discipline, reassurance, protection, affection, and the confidence that comes from knowing that the people who created them are present in their lives.

When a loving father or mother is willing and able to provide those things, their presence has value that cannot be measured on a financial worksheet.

That is what the Rikers 7 Coalition means when we speak about meaningful support for our children.

Financial support is important.

But meaningful support is bigger than money.

A CHILD IS MORE THAN A FINANCIAL OBLIGATION

The family-support system should recognize the whole child.

A court can calculate income.

It can calculate percentages.

It can calculate arrears.

It can calculate payments.

But there is no mathematical formula capable of calculating the value of a parent attending a child's basketball game, helping with homework, teaching a child how to ride a bicycle, comforting that child after a nightmare, being present on birthdays, providing guidance through adolescence, or simply saying:

“I am here. I love you. You can count on me.”

Those things matter.

A child should not have to choose between receiving financial support and having a meaningful relationship with both loving parents.

Our position is simple:

CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD SUPPORT THE WHOLE CHILD.

That means financial, physical, emotional, developmental, and relational support whenever doing so is safe and in the child's best interests.

WHAT BLESSING v. FREESTONE ACTUALLY SAID

One of the most important cases in understanding the federal Title IV-D system is Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997).

The case was brought by five women in Arizona, whose children were eligible for services through the state's Title IV-D child-support program.

They argued that failures within Arizona's child-support system violated rights they believed Title IV-D gave them.

The United States Supreme Court rejected the broad argument that individuals possessed a federally enforceable right to require the state child-support agency to achieve overall “substantial compliance” with Title IV-D.

In explaining why, the Supreme Court said that the statutory substantial-compliance requirement:

“was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents.”

The Court explained that this particular standard instead operated as a measurement of the systemwide performance of the state's Title IV-D program.

That distinction matters.

The Court did not hold that children should not benefit from child support.

It did not hold that parents have no rights whatsoever under Title IV-D.

And it did not declare that the entire child-support program exists for purposes unrelated to children.

What the decision does reveal, however, is something worthy of public discussion:

A government program can be measured according to institutional performance standards that are not the same thing as measuring whether an individual child or parent has actually been served fairly.

That distinction is central to the concerns raised by the Rikers 7 Coalition.

FOLLOW THE MONEY — BUT FOLLOW IT ACCURATELY

There is a financial structure behind Title IV-D.

Federal law provides incentive payments to states based upon several measures of child-support program performance, including establishment of paternity, establishment of support orders, collection of current support, collection of arrears, and cost effectiveness.

Those incentive payments are made to the states and, under federal law, must be reinvested in the child-support program or approved activities designed to improve its effectiveness or efficiency.

There are also circumstances involving families receiving public assistance in which child-support collections may be distributed partly to government rather than entirely to the custodial household.

Federal law provides that, for certain families receiving assistance, portions of collections may reimburse the federal and state governments for assistance previously provided.

That is substantially different from the way many members of the public understand the words “child support.”

The Rikers 7 Coalition believes parents deserve to understand exactly:

• Who receives the money?
• How is the money distributed?
• What portion reaches the household?
• What portion, if any, reimburses government assistance?
• What financial incentives exist within the enforcement system?
• And how do those financial structures affect government decision-making?

Transparency should never be controversial.

Parents deserve answers.

Children deserve answers.

NONCUSTODIAL PARENT AND ABANDONMENT

The Rikers 7 Coalition challenges the way the term “noncustodial parent” is used within the Title IV-D child-support system.

Our position is that the structure of the program treats the parent designated as noncustodial as the parent from whom support must be compelled because that parent is viewed by the system as having failed to provide support or remain responsible for the child.

From the Coalition's perspective, this effectively places that parent into a legal and administrative position associated with abandonment, whether or not that description reflects the actual relationship between the parent and child.

A parent may be loving.

A parent may be present.

A parent may communicate with the child every day.

A parent may provide food, clothing, transportation, shelter, emotional support, guidance, and direct financial assistance.

Yet once that parent is designated the noncustodial parent within the child-support system, the government may assert authority over how financial support is calculated, collected, and enforced.

The Rikers 7 Coalition believes this designation can fundamentally change the relationship between a parent, the child, and the state.

That is why we believe parents must be fully informed of what the designation means, how it is imposed, what rights are affected, and what legal authority the government claims once a parent has been placed into the Title IV-D system.

DUE PROCESS MATTERS

Our concern becomes even greater when a parent's legal and financial obligations are established without that parent meaningfully participating in the proceeding.

New York law permits a support order to be entered by default when a respondent fails to answer or appear after proper service.

That makes proper service critically important.

Due process requires more than simply assuming someone knows that a case exists.

Under New York Family Court Act §427, specific methods of service are authorized. When service is attempted by mail alone, the statute requires proof satisfactory to the court that the respondent actually received notice, including specified evidence concerning certified mail.

The law also provides mechanisms through which a respondent may seek relief from a default order.

Those protections matter because the consequences of a support order can follow a parent for years.

A person should not lose the opportunity to participate in a proceeding affecting their income, family, and children because of unreliable or fabricated service.

Where service is disputed, courts should examine that issue seriously.

Where notice was inadequate, there must be a meaningful remedy.

And where a parent never received actual notice, procedural convenience should never become more important than due process.

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NEVER BECOME A MONEY COURT

The Rikers 7 Coalition recognizes that children have legitimate financial needs and that parents have responsibilities toward their children.

Our criticism is not directed at the idea that parents should support their children.

Our concern is what happens when financial enforcement becomes disconnected from the broader well-being of the family.

A system intended to support children should ask more than:

How much money can be collected?

It should also ask:

• Is this child emotionally secure?
• Does this child have healthy relationships with both loving parents where appropriate?
• Are court procedures fair to both parents?
• Are parents actually receiving notice and an opportunity to be heard?
• Is enforcement helping the family—or unintentionally destabilizing it?
• Are financial incentives influencing institutional priorities?
• Could cooperation between parents produce a better outcome for the child than punishment and conflict?

Those are legitimate questions.

WE REJECT THE FALSE CHOICE

The debate should never be:

Money OR fatherhood.

Money OR motherhood.

Financial responsibility OR parental presence.

Children deserve more than that.

Where both parents are safe, loving, willing, and capable, the goal should be:

FINANCIAL SUPPORT + MEANINGFUL PARENTAL PRESENCE + EMOTIONAL SECURITY + FAIR PROCESS.

That is meaningful support.

THE RIKERS 7 COALITION'S POSITION

We believe that family policy should begin with the whole child.

We support responsible parenthood.

We support parents financially contributing to the upbringing of their children.

We support accountability.

But accountability must apply to everyone involved in the system—including government agencies and courts.

We believe parents deserve meaningful notice and a genuine opportunity to be heard.

We believe financial classifications should not be treated as judgments about a parent's love or value.

We believe government financial incentives should be transparent.

We believe the public deserves to understand how Title IV-D actually operates.

We believe that the emotional and psychological importance of a loving parent's presence should never be treated as secondary simply because it cannot be reduced to a dollar amount.

And above everything else:

WE BELIEVE THE CHILD MUST REMAIN AT THE CENTER.

Not revenue.

Not statistics.

Not institutional performance.

Not collections.

Not punishment.

THE CHILD.

Because meaningful support for our children means providing the resources they need to live and protecting the relationships, love, guidance, stability, dignity, and emotional security they need to thrive.