|
|
|
 |  |
 |
 |
WSBA Info | |
|
For Lawyers | |
|
For the Public |  |
 |
For the Media |  |
|
CLE |  |
| | Bench Bar Guidelines | News Releases | Publications | |
|
|
July 2006Children of the Poor: Ensuring a Future for Washington's YoungIt is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. It has been 42 years since Lyndon B. Johnson declared "an unconditional war on poverty in America" in his State of the Union Address to the nation. Even longer since Mollie Orshansky, now 91 years old, became the originator of the litmus test of our well-known "poverty line" by publishing an article in the Social Security Bulletin titled "Children of the Poor." In 1958, she tried to estimate the incidence of child poverty in America, working tirelessly for the government in attempting to quantify the number of poor in our nation of plenty.1 The number of poor children in our nation has only grown since this first attempt to quantify it by our government. There are many who have written more succinctly and with clarity of purpose and passion on this topic, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Jimmy Carter, Marian Wright Edelman to Hillary Clinton. This is a long-fought battle spanning decades of dedicated public and private service, and it is easy to question what could one more public servant, on the treadmill of bureaucracy, possibly do with only pen and paper to change this overwhelming number. However, as an individual or in a group, each of us has the ability to play a part in fighting this quiet battle on behalf of our state's children. You do not have to step outside of your comfort zone to make a difference in this area. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: "Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve . . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love."2 The first step in serving the children of Washington is to recognize that they need our help. The second is to understand that we can make a difference in their lives. In this affluent land of computer software, airplanes that soar overhead, and pristine beauty, 36 percent of our states' children live in low-income families, defined as income below 200 percent of the federal poverty line.3 That is 539,730 Washington children living in poverty, roughly the population of Portland, Oregon. In 1996, about 70 percent of poor children eligible for child support did not receive it.4 And the fastest-growing segment of poor in our society? Children, the majority under the age of six.5 Forty-seven percent of them (or about 254,405) live with a parent or caregiver who works year-round, full-time.6 Only 16 percent do not have an employed parent.7 They are the children of the working poor, and they are the faces you see and walk past every single day — on our buses, on our sidewalks, and in our grocery store lines. Fifty-two percent of these children live with a single parent. Nor is this a mostly inner city problem. Fifty-four percent of our state's poor children reside in rural areas and many of them (about 28 percent) had to move in the past year. Many of them are one job or move away from being homeless. The fact is inescapable that children and families are the fastest-growing group in the homeless population, representing 40 percent of homeless people.8 When studying this same problem in Davis, California, a reasonably affluent college town surrounded by farmland, rice fields, and vineyards, researchers found much to surprise them. After an exhaustive survey completed in Yolo County in 2000 researchers determined that the most common homeless person in the community was a five-year-old child.9 Washington's experience is consistent with the national trend. In 2004, U.S. Census Bureau figures reflected that the national poverty rate, as well as the poverty rate among children, increased.10 According the to U.S. Census, the percentage of people living in poverty in Washington in 2004 was 11.7 percent as compared to children at more than 36 percent. Children represent 35.2 percent of people living in poverty nationwide, while constituting only 25 percent of the total population.11 This past year, we have been confronted with images of utter hopelessness and the stark poverty revealed by nature hammering away at our nation's coast. But this problem is not limited to New Orleans. It is here in our backyard. The connection between single parents and poverty post-dissolution is striking. Since 1996, the passage of welfare-to-work laws at the national level and implemented in our state has resulted in transitioning many families off public assistance to the working world.12 Yet even working full-time, parents cannot meet the most basic of expenses for their children, such as healthcare and daycare. Most of us would consider these the most necessary of expenditures and not luxuries, yet they are enough to push parents and children beyond their scarce resources. Child Support Is Essential One of the changing demographics about our society is what families look like today. No longer an "Ozzie and Harriet" society, many of our children live with a single parent or in a blended family. Many parents are subject to either administrative or judicial orders of child support that require them to provide monetarily for their children who live primarily in the other parent's care. When we talk about child support as practitioners or advocates, it is often in the context of what it means to a client or a parent, but there is a third person in this situation — the affected child. Throughout my professional career, I have represented or known many clients and friends who have struggled to meet their monthly obligation to provide support for their children, whether court-ordered or not. They have often taken second jobs, worked endless hours, and scraped through their own budgets to meet this responsibility to their children. Often, as is typical in our legal arena, we hear only about the failures, not about those who day after day, month after month, provide for their children. Yet the vast majority of parents, whether under court order or not, routinely pay their child support. In Washington in 2005, over 40 percent of nonresidential parents paid some child support. This makes a difference to our children.13 But it is also true that for a large segment of our children, there is no parent willing to meet this obligation without a court order. There is no substitute for economic justice when you are six and staring into an empty refrigerator. Child-Support Orders Help Nonresidential Children Child support, particularly for single-parent families, is an important source of income. Studies show that, on average, child support received from nonresident parents accounts for approximately 16 percent of families' total income.14 Poor children who have received welfare benefits are more likely to receive child support than those who have not.15 Child support paid by nonresident parents reduces the percentage of children living below the poverty line between eight and 10 percent.16 Children with a child-support order are nearly twice as likely to receive financial support from the nonresident parent as children who do not. Of those, on the national level, 44 percent of children who had a support order received the full amount of ordered support. The percentage of support paid for children with nonresident parents varies significantly, depending upon the state in which they reside. For example, Wisconsin and Minnesota have significantly higher percentages of children receiving the full amount of ordered support, while California is much lower. It is believed that the former states have very effective support-enforcement programs.17 Approximately 10 percent of the children who regularly receive child support would fall below the poverty line but for the receipt of child support. Washington consistently ranks in the top third of states for enforcement of child support.18 The administrative record of our own enforcement system is strong, but even so, in 2005, a little more than 40 percent of nonresidential parents paid some amount of support within the preceding year.19 Child Support Reduces Income Inequality Among Children Payment of child support has been instrumental in reducing income inequality among children.20 Based on the 2004 U.S. Census, children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than any other group (18.9 percent nationwide) and less able to access regular healthcare as a result. A recent Washington study reflects that the poverty status of custodial parents and their children is much greater than that of nonresidential parents. In fact, the average poverty rate for a single parent and child has a mean of 49 percent, whereas the nonresidential parent's average poverty rate is 15 percent. This latter rate is of particularly concern, because the poverty rate of an intact household is 21 percent, which means that the nonresident parent's rate of poverty actually decreases upon separation, whereas a custodial parent's dramatically increases.21 The impact of families separating into two households makes both households worse off. Especially striking is that this impact falls disproportionately on the custodial parents and their children, who face an enormous decline in their standard of living. Private and Public Practitioners Can Make a Difference How can practitioners make a difference? Several studies paint an important picture. More parents pay support, over the long term after families separate, when their child-support orders are realistic and accurate.22 Being realistic about an opposing party's income is important in the context of establishing both current and back support orders. That does not mean one has to sacrifice advocacy on behalf of a client, but one does have to think long term about the client's concerns and not just about the order one can secure for the client's benefit today. Good advocacy includes balancing a client's interests for the long term. What does it gain a client to obtain the highest income calculation against the other parent if it is not realistically based? You may end up with a higher monthly support payment and a poor payment record from the other parent, which continually requires enforcement. Obtaining orders of child support that may not be based on realistic income figures may result in a recipient parent being forced to repeatedly bring private contempt motions to obtain compliance. The cost of this process to a client may well outweigh the benefit the additional monthly support amount would contribute to their household. All practitioners can participate in local and state committees or public forums to voice their concerns, and make recommendations to committees and legislators. We need the best possible input and consensus on how to address this concern in our community. This past year, the Governor's Task Force on Washington's State Child Support Schedule and Guidelines worked hard to investigate and consider public input. However, while many dedicated task force members worked tirelessly, obtaining input from private practitioners, despite repeated solicitations, was challenging. Many ordinary citizens attended the public meetings and voiced their concerns. The bill to continue this task force's important work did not make it through the 2006 legislative session but may be revived in the coming year. If not, some other process, just as valuable, may take the task force's place. The expertise that our profession can offer to this process is invaluable, and I would encourage practitioners, particularly those who work in family-practice areas, to give of their time and expertise to such groups. These committees value the contributions of those who practice in this area and who can provide information on how to improve the law governing support decisions in our state for both parents and their children. Enforcement Efforts Across the State Washington has a variety of laws that enable Division of Child Support (DCS) to collect child support through a variety of administrative methods without the requirement of a court proceeding for each collection action. The funds collected are processed through the Washington State Support Registry. These and other remedies are available without cost to all Washington residents and are provided automatically to those custodians who receive public-assistance payments for dependent children. Collection and enforcement remedies are also available to those who do not receive public assistance, but the recipient parent must request them. When administrative methods of collection prove useless, cases are often referred to local prosecuting attorneys' offices to initiate contempt-of-court proceedings to enforce a child-support order. As an example, King County currently has more than 4,300 of these cases in the contempt-of-court unit and dedicates significant resources to enforcing child-support orders. Individuals who are referred by DCS for contempt of court are first offered a diversion program in King County, called ACE (Alternatives to Court Enforcement), but if they decline or do not respond, their cases progress to judicial enforcement. Public defenders are available to individuals asserted to be in contempt at any juncture when the state seeks incarceration as a possible sanction. The usual practice is to initially obtain an order that sets a series of hearings and establishes requirements that must be met on a monthly basis (either seeking employment, setting monthly payments, or providing medical or similar verification if payments are to be temporarily excused). Failure to comply may result in a finding of contempt and additional requirements or coercive custody. If a respondent fails to appear as ordered, a bench warrant for his arrest is issued by the court. In King County, for example, about 1,000 such warrants are outstanding at any given time, and the King County Sheriff's Office works in conjunction with the Family Support Division in a cooperative multi-agency approach to process these cases. Any bail paid as a result of an arrest, whether posted voluntarily or after detention, is generally applied to the respondent's child-support debt. Each year, most prosecuting attorneys' offices across the state, including the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Family Support Division, make a special effort to encourage individuals in state contempt-of-court caseloads who are at warrant status to deal with their cases and come in to quash their warrants. Amnesty offers are provided to most individuals that enable them to quash their warrants for reduced amounts once a year. The funds received from this program go to the Washington State Support Registry and are applied as payments to their child-support obligations. Most local prosecuting attorneys' offices throughout the state and their family support divisions offer similar programs. Public defenders from the local agencies in King and other counties are available to assist individuals. Currently, King County has just more than 1,000 cases at warrant status for contempt related to failure to pay child support. Of those cases at warrant status, some 140 individuals owe more than $40,000 in unpaid child-support arrearages. Ultimately, it is the application of the court's power to enforce support obligations by finding respondents in contempt that is a recipient parent's last hope of receiving child support. Public defenders play an inestimable role in helping both the state and the court determine which respondents are truly unable to comply because of legitimate health or other challenges, and those who are simply unwilling to meet their children's needs. Currently, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (WAPA) is studying how to improve child-support enforcement in the state and is in the information-gathering phase of this project. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King Jr. gave voice to the concept that justice is not just about our legal system, but how the real world and economic injustice impact our society as a whole. If we ignore those less fortunate in our neighborhoods, what does it say about us as a community? Taking responsibility for something larger than one's own life means facing the well-being of those around us. If we fail to concern ourselves with the children of this state, we fail the future of our communities. America's story is about how ordinary people can influence their society. I believe our state is strong and healthy and caring. The outpouring of time, funds, and energy demonstrated over the past year to those affected by natural disasters around the world is a good example of the charitable health of our citizenry. But it is time to have this conversation on the homefront and to realize that our own communities in Washington need a higher level of participation and assistance to help those most vulnerable. The legal community can start this conversation. We may not all agree on how to solve the problem, but unless we begin to discuss it, we will continue to deal with the tragedy of those who suffer from our silence. To find out about enforcement services or amnesty programs being offered in your community, contact your local DCS office or your local prosecuting attorney's office. Additionally, DCS offers a comprehensive website related to child support services provided in a variety of languages at www1.dshs.wa.gov./dcs/-index.shtml. Jacqueline Jeske's practice has emphasized family law and criminal law matters for over 20 years. With a background as a deputy prosecuting attorney, public defender, and private family practice attorney, she has been involved in a number of community and professional groups — she volunteers at the YWCA's Shelter for Homeless Women and King County's Cross Cultural Family Law Clinic; and serves on legislative committees for both the King County Bar Association's Family Law Section and the Northwest Women's Law Center as well as King County's Family Law Section's committee on the child-support guidelines. She is a past president of the Eastside Legal Assistance Program. She can be contacted at jacqueline.jeske@metrokc.gov. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and not those of any particular organization. NOTES 10. U.S. Census Bureau 2004, National Center For Children in Poverty, 2005. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. at Shipler. 13. Support Enforcement Management Systems Data, Division of Child Support, DSHS Studies, 2005 Report. 14. Urban Institute, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children, II. What has changed since 1996?, Roseanna Bess, Jacob Leos-Urbel, Rob Geen, February 1, 2001. 15. Urban Institute, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children, II. What has changed since 1996?, Roseanna Bess, Jacob Leos-Urbel, Rob Geen, February 1, 2001; U.S. Census Bureau 2002, 2004; The Working Poor, David Shipler. 16. Urban Institute, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children, II. What has changed since 1996?, Roseanna Bess, Jacob Leos-Urbel, Rob Geen, February 1, 2001. 17. Little Hoover Commission, 1997, Enforcing Child Support: Parental Duty, Public Pr. Report #142, May; National Center For Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Child Care and Early Education Demographics of Low-Income Children; Urban Institute, "Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty," Elaine Sorensen, Chava Zibman, March 2000. An Economic Study of Recent Washington Child Support Orders, Kate Stirling, Ph.D., September 2002. 18. Policy Studies, Inc., Report on Federal Fiscal Data, 2005. 19. Support Enforcement Management Systems Data, Division of Child Support, DSHS Studies, 2005 Report. 20. National Center For Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Child Care and Early Education Demographics of Low-Income Children, Urban Institute; "Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty," Elaine Sorensen, Chava Zibman, March 2000. 21. An Economic Study of Recent Washington Child Support Orders, Kate Stirling, Ph.D., September, 2002; National Center For Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Child Care and Early Education Demographics of Low-Income Children, Urban Institute; "Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty," Elaine Sorensen, Chava Zibman, March 2000. 22. National Center For Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health: Child Care and Early Education Demographics of Low-Income Children, Urban Institute: "Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty," Elaine Sorensen, Chava Zibman, March 2000; An Economic Study of Recent Washington Child Support Orders, Kate Stirling, Ph.D., September, 2002. |
