President Bill Clinton strengthened the arm of the Child Support system not only in restructuring the system by incorporating Government power to make child support collection from non-paying fathers easier, but in the mist, this power created a permanent underclass of low-income men, Black men in particular.

The reconstruction of this system did more damage to the Black family than any government program has in the past 40 years. It made it easier for women with illegitimate children to sign-up for child support, which leaves little incentive for the mother or father to raise their children themselves. This, in turn, gave women all the more reason to be less tolerant of fathers who would not bow to their every demand for financial support.

If the mother asks the father for help and the father cannot give it at the time, the mother can simply show up at the local child support office and begin a case against him. The official policy of state child support agencies is "they are not suppose to turn down anyone who wants a case with us," meaning, they cannot say no to a woman who wants to take a man for child support, regardless of what the man wants.

With this kind of encouragement, a woman does not have to ask the father for anything, if they want support (a check every month) all they have to do is show up at the child support office. Because women have this convenience and guarantee of government backing, many have chosen to use this against men they regret having sex with.

In addition, once in the system, a man is considered "dead-beat" and subject to any and all government intervention where it pertains to his earnings and whatever professional licenses he uses to make a living or privileges afforded him as a citizen. They have involved every government entity from the IRS to the courts to the DMV to the credit bureaucrats to catch men who are late with payments, based on the word of a demanding woman.

The object of the child support system is not to decide whether or not the man is capable or even concerned with fathering the child, but where he is and how he makes his money. In other words, being a father is not important anymore, but the ability to pay is and this system will spare no expense in seeking out and punishing the father.

Followed by Clinton, Al Gore, in his contribution to the Clinton administration and their love for the soccer-mom constituency, "in June 1998, Vice President Gore released the report, "Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation and Fatherhood." This report, issued by the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, is the result of a multi-year effort to identify what we know about fatherhood and what additional government research could be undertaken to increase our understanding of how fathering and family structure affect child and adult well-being."

This program begun by Gore is nothing more than a cover up for the liberal government to empower women and mothers and decrease the powers of fathers, as well as reducing the structure of the family in America. Talk is cheap and all the rhetoric above and below about Fatherhood is mere words; the practice reeks of throwback women's liberation and an agenda of men-haters anonymous.

HHS is promoting responsible fatherhood by improving work opportunities for low-income fathers, increasing child support collections, enhancing parenting skills, supporting access and visitation by non-custodial parents, reducing domestic violence, and involving boys and young men in preventing teenage pregnancy and premature parenting.

If read carefully in the above, the government has taken it upon themselves to redefine fatherhood in order to indoctrinate the kind of fathers this society would like to have and control. It clearly describes the low-income crowd, which does not make up a large portion of society's fathers, but a fraction. In fact, child support stats claim that 62% of mothers are not receiving child support, which is worded carefully to deceive the reader.

The truth is, the majority of those women do not ask for child support or have a working relationship with the father that does not involve the government, and child support stats include these people into their studies. Only a fraction of child support cases are actually cases of fathers not paying child support purposefully, yet their neglect in this fact are not the stats they magnify to the public.

The harder the system hits, the more poverty it brings to men who cannot pay because of the punishing procedures of the system. There are no provisions for fathers at the onset of a case, only for the mothers. Unfortunately, men's rights are automatically waived to accommodate the mothers. Society has counted null and void the duties and responsibilities of fathers to appease the demand of selfish women, who abuse the system for their own interest, and to satisfy the agendas of women's rights movements.

Men, politicians, and leaders are afraid to address this problem to correct it because they fear being ostracized by feminist groups and humiliated in public. Yet when the system comes to their door, they have friends in high places that "take care of it." The brunt of this bias system falls on the under-privileged of men and fathers and in turn eventually destroys the structure of the family, and women have become dependant on this system instead of the fathers.

HHS is also working with private, public, and foundation partners to ensure that both fathers and mothers are fully involved in raising their children, not just the first day, but every day of their children's lives. In March 1999, the department launched a nationwide public service campaign challenging fathers to remain connected to their children even if they do not live with them.

The above brings in other institutions to be on the lookout for men in the system. They offer them the second-hand service treatment while looking down on them as "deadbeats." The father has been defined as trifling and lazy and irresponsible and this is how the government wants them. Though there are some men who willfully neglect their children, the majority wants to be fathers without government intervention.

BACKGROUND
Research shows that children benefit from positive relationships not only with their mothers but also with their fathers:

• Higher levels of father involvement in activities with their children, such as eating meals together, going on outings, and helping with homework, are associated with fewer behavior problems, higher levels of sociability, and a higher level of school performance among children and adolescents;
• Father involvement in children's schooling, such as volunteering at school and attending school meetings, parent-teacher conferences and class events, is associated with higher grades, greater school enjoyment, and lower chances of suspension or expulsion from school; and
• The father-child relationship affects daughters as well as sons. Girls who live with both their mother and father do better academically. In addition, they are less likely to engage in early sexual involvement and in the use of alcohol or drugs.

Keeping fathers connected to their children and increasing fathers' involvement in the lives of their children poses significant challenges for our nation:

• High rates of divorce, non-marital child bearing, and the financial and emotional stresses of raising children with severe special health care needs increase the risk that fathers will be less involved in their children's lives; and
• As more families have two parents working outside the home, fathers need support in the work place to find ways to balance work and family obligations and provide children with the level of child-parent involvement and supervision needed for their healthy growth and development.

While government cannot make good fathers, it can support efforts to help men become the best fathers they can be.

Interjection
The above concepts undermine the ability of men and families and redefine them according to what the government believe a father and or family should be, never suggesting the failures and unwillingness of the mothers to cooperate. There are many women who are vindictive and spiteful and who purposefully restrict visits from fathers.

These mothers can say anything they want to this system and are believed and supported; this is not a medium for men, but women only. Men are nothing more than negligent people attempting to escape their responsibilities, which can never be proven by government, only assumed and then publicized for the nation to see and eventually believe.

From the above, it is clear the child support system has an agenda, which is to take control of the family, preferably, low-income families, which include many Blacks. The idea is to strengthen women and weaken men. This way, woman can always depend on the government, which in turn guarantees the funding of government programs through liberal and Democratic policy. Black people who vote Democrat contribute to the destruction of their own families and children's future.

Please return for part three.

>>> Part 1
>>> Part 2
>>> Part 3
>>> Conclusion

Source From: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/fct/fthr990621.htm

© 2005 by CR Hamilton