PART II
CHILD SUPPORT: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM
As the climate of social change grew, estranged wives with now guaranteed rights to custody of their children under the “The Tender Years Doctrine” were faced with being broke. This problem became exacerbated in the years following the “Counter Culture” of the 1960’s because both mothers and fathers alike were indigent and never married in many cases.13 Until 1981, the common-law approach to child support was strictly adhered to in North Carolina but
8 James Michael Pitsula, “New World Dawning: The Sixties at Regina Campus” Pp. 285-290 (2008).
9 Random v. Random, 170 N.W. 313, 314 (N.D. 1918).
10 See Supra, Note 7.
11 See Supra, Note 4.
12 See Supra, Note 3.
13 See Supra, Note 7.
was problematic in the wake of this social revolution.14 Although there have been legal provisions which assist innocent former spouses to maintain their standard of living through alimony and spousal support statutes under the current Chapter 50 provisions contained in the General Statutes,15 the problem became what to do in cases where there was never any marriage? The federal government responded with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act in 1974 which was purportedly to provide for the general welfare of minor children, based upon the “needs” of the parent. While the child support system began solely in the civil trial division of the court, where in North Carolina it still remains today in part16 it quickly became its own entity. It was at the height of the sexual revolution and feminist movement of the 1970’s that the federal government passed Title IV-D of the Social Security Act which also empowered the state to create its own guidelines based on this law, and pursue putative fathers for support of children without civil initiation by the custodial parent if they were receiving welfare from the state. This law also provides federal funding for states that enact child support systems in conformity to Title IV-D.17
This system was implemented and established for the purpose of assisting indigent parents of minor children to provide monitory support for them through state collection of funds, and enforcement of support orders by police powers.18 Another function of this system was to create a “level playing field” were “disenfranchised” mothers, with custody of their children could live equal to their male counterparts.19 The system was also intended with a policy
14 1 N.C. Family Law Practice § 14:1; and Wells v. Wells, 227 N.C. 614, 44 S.E.2d 31, 1 A.L.R.2d 905 (1947);
Tidwell v. Booker, 290 N.C. 98, 225 S.E.2d 816 (1976).
15 N.C.G.S. § 50-16.1-3
16 N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4
17 42 U.S.C.A. § 654
18 See Supra, Note 12.
19 The average family income in 1992 for single mothers with children was $14,517, and the average income of the lowest quintile was $2308. See House Comm. on Ways and Means, Overview of Entitlement Programs
(Greenbook), Table H-27, at 1210 (1994) [hereinafter Greenbook]. The low-income status of female-headed families is, in part, a result of divorce, child support, and alimony policy. Lenore Weitzman's ten-year study of divorces in California found that the standard of living for divorced women and children dropped 73% while that of
consideration to prevent these custodial mothers from becoming wards of the state and living on welfare20 and to reduce the levels of child poverty by shifting the burden of supporting the children to the non-custodial parent.21 This system is now used to punish parents for failed marriages or illegitimate children. Conversely, it is also used to reward those who have physical custody by giving them a windfall profit. In the case of married or formerly married persons, this system is often used in lieu of pursuing alimony and spousal support because many times, child support awards are far more lucrative and less costly than a traditional claim for alimony. Child support cases are prosecuted and enforced at no cost by the state and subject to regular increases. What this system has lead to, are billions of dollars of North Carolina tax-payer funds being funneled into a system that is abused and which chokes our court systems, and clogs our jails.
