Once the government has defined and labeled what an insufficient father is and have convinced society that these men are horrible people, they proceed in intensifying their onslaught of fathers by implementing a system to seize money, licenses and other assets from them based on the labels. All regardless of what they do and or feel for their children.

Following this system of penalties, the government then realizes that it has created a new underclass and assumes the role of redeemer by enacting federally-funded programs to restore non-custodial fathers - prime victims of the system of penalties - to productive citizenship once again. Such is the programs below.

INCREASING FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Improving Child Support Collections. An important part of being a responsible parent is providing financial support. Research also suggests that there is a positive relationship between non-custodial fathers' involvement with their children and their payment of child support.

The Clinton Administration, in partnership with states, has made a strong effort to increase child support payments from non-custodial parents - mothers as well as fathers. In FY 1998, the federal-state partnership collected a record $14.4 billion from non-custodial parents, an increase of 7 percent from 1997's $13.4 billion, and an increase of 80 percent since 1992 when $8 billion was collected.

In addition, HHS reported the federal government collected over $1.1 billion in delinquent child support from federal income tax refunds for tax year 1997. This amount was 3 percent higher than the previous year and a 70 percent increase since 1992. Collections were made on behalf of nearly 1.3 million families.

The bragging rights to the above are for a small percentage of the people, those who suppose all men are dogs. On the flip side of the statement, there reveals the beginning of a new underclass of people, preferably non-custodial fathers. The more money the child support system collects, unjustly, from men who have not custody of their children simply means the system does not care who the fathers are or if they love their children, just as long as they get some money.

In the statement, "Research also suggests that there is a positive relationship between non-custodial fathers' involvement with their children and their payment of child support." The scientific field shows its total and complete ignorance on this because a more natural and positive relationship would be a child and the father period, and not simply based on financial support, but time spent; however, the system is clearly only concerned about non-custodial parents, fathers who have no right to their children after a court order that awards the children automatically to the mother.

So, one does not necessarily have to be a bad father to bring the wrath of the child support system on you, but merely a non-custodial parent created by the courts, and again, preferably a father. And though the statement mentions "mothers as well as fathers," the obvious applies in the minds of any thinking/living person that it is talking about men.

"The Clinton Administration, in partnership with states, has made a strong effort to increase child support payments from non-custodial parents."

This statement says it all: fathers are under attack for no other reason than they are fathers. Why is it necessary to increase child support payments from men willing to support their children?

To not appear bias or insensitive, the government began "Promoting Employment Opportunities for Low-Income Fathers." In this government funded program, "seven states are participating in Parents' Fair Share, a demonstration project that provides employment-related training, parenting education, peer group support, and mediation services to encourage low-income fathers to be more involved with their children and increase their payment of child support."

The child support system does not simply target low-income fathers to assist them in gaining jobs; they create low-income people by enforcement of their penalties. The penalties jail men, report arrears on their credit, [causing employers to reject them as new hires] suspend drivers license, [needed for employment and bank accounts] and take income tax checks, all, which contribute to becoming low-income. However, the logic behind this system's penalties reeks of being "out of touch" with the people, and of oppression of the poor by the rich.

HHS is working closely with the Department of Labor to implement the Welfare to Work program, which provides grants to states and communities to move long-term welfare recipients and certain non-custodial parents of children on welfare into lasting, unsubsidized employment.

Non-custodial parents on welfare? Meaning men on welfare, if not, women who have lost custody of their children to the system and have resorted to welfare. If this is so, it is a tragedy and is a reciprocal cycle of poverty created and maintained by liberal Democrats needing the poor in order to sustain their political base, nothing more, and nothing less.

The Administration's Work to Welfare reauthorization would help more low-income fathers work, pay child support and play a responsible role in their children's lives. In addition, HHS' Administration for Children and Families (ACF) recently released A Guide to Funding Services for Children and Families Through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program, which provides examples of ways states could use their TANF funds to support responsible fatherhood efforts and employment of non-custodial parents.

Work to Welfare? If this is not an apparent act of containment what is. Who wants to go from working to being on welfare? However, after the system of penalties are applied to a man who started off working and wanting to support his child, only to be brow-beat and vigorously singled out by the government, the chances of going from working to welfare are absolute.

STRENGTHENING PARENT-CHILD BONDS
Encouraging Fathers to "Be Their Dad." In March 1999, HHS launched a new, nationwide public service campaign challenging fathers to remain emotionally and financially connected to their children even if they do not live with them. The campaign's tag line is, "They're your kids. Be their dad." and stresses the importance of fathers by showing the consequences for children when fathers do not have a positive role in their children's lives. More than a quarter of American children - nearly 17 million - do not live with their father.

Not once does the above statement mention the fact that millions of women withhold children from their fathers, yet this system would have people believe that these "millions" of men are purposefully neglecting their children when more than likely, the mother is keeping the child from the father. This is deception and should be brought to the courts. However, judges and politicians are too afraid of the feminist outcry to bring this point to the light thus leaving the fate of fathers all over the nation to the system of unjust penalties.

If a man is sitting beneath a sign that reads "They're your kids. Be their dad." In a social service, government-funded program's office, any one would gather a negative image of that man. This is how the child support system, backed by the government, has pushed their propaganda and would like society to see men and fathers, as people who are simply considering supporting their children.

As stated earlier, politicians and leaders will not address this obvious injustice done to fathers who love their children by placing into affect a system that distinguishes a man who wants to support his children from one who does not, they would rather rely on assumption and practice paternalism [an early form of fascism] and suppose all men are dogs. What a waste of a vote and a boatload of biased, feminist bull.

Please return for part four.

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

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

© 2005 by CR Hamilton