Child Support and Visitation Laws in SD

Currently in South Dakota, child support and visitation are looked at as separate issues. I am frustrated by this and I believe our laws should be re-evaluated. This is an issue that doesn't directly affect me right now, but may affect my daughter and me in the future.

I believe that if a parent wants visitation rights/privileges, they should own up to his/her responsibility of child support. I don’t think there are enough consequences for being behind on child support.

According to South Dakota’s Department of Social Services’ website:
(http://dss.sd.gov/childsupport/services/enforce.asp) South Dakota’s Division of Child Support (DCS)

• may issue a wage withholding order to the non-custodial parent's employer to withhold current support payments plus an additional amount to be applied to any past due support.
• DCS may enter into alternative payment agreements with the non-custodial parent instead of issuing a wage withholding order to the employer
• Employers must report basic information about all newly hired employees to the SD Department of Labor
• If a non-custodial parent owes at least $1,000 in past due child support, DCS reports the past due amount to credit bureau agencies
• The Department of Social Services can restrict the issuance and/or renewal (This means that they won’t take a current driver’s license until it expires.) of any driver's license, professional, hunting or fishing license issued by the state of South Dakota if the applicant:
  o Owes at least $1,000 in past due child support, and
  o has not made any child support payments for three months, or
  o Has at least 3 months of past due child support that have not been reduced to judgment
• Passport applications may be denied if non-custodial parents are at least $5,000 past due in their child support obligations
• DCS can collect past due child support from a non-custodial parent’s federal income tax refund
• If a non-custodial parent owes past due child support, DCS may withhold or intercept periodic or lump sum payments the non-custodial parent receives from state or local agencies, including: reemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and lottery winnings
• DCS may refer cases to a prosecutor or a Special Assistant Attorney General for show cause hearings when a non-custodial parent has not paid any support obligation for a period of time. The court may find a non-custodial parent in contempt of court if the non-custodial parent has the ability to pay but is willfully not paying the child support obligations. This enforcement tool is used only when all others have failed.
  

It is detrimental to the child when the non-custodial parent does not pay. The child may not get things that he/she need, or the custodial parent may end up spending more time away from the child working a second (or third) job to make up for the unpaid amount. That means that the non-custodial parent’s failure to pay subtracts from the time that the custodial parent is able to spend with the child. I think that it is not in the child’s best interest to continue visitation with a parent who is not responsible enough to support the cost of raising the child. People will argue that it is not in the best interest of the child to deny visitation. If the non-custodial parent is truly interested in his/her child’s best interest, then they will not allow the payments to get behind. In my opinion, I think that a parent who falls behind in child support should be charged with some type of neglect.

The custodial parent also suffers when the non-custodial parent falls behind. There are financial burdens that are caused by unpaid support. The costs of raising the child do not stop when support is not paid. That means that the custodial parent must find ways to make sure the needs of the child are met. This is in addition to the custodial parent’s responsibilities and stress of raising the child as a single parent.

Is it too much to ask the non-custodial parent to keep up with his/her financial responsibility? A lot of the time their financial responsibility doesn’t even cover 50% of the costs of raising the child. On http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/ there is a calculator that figures the cost to raise a child in different areas of the nation based on income and marital status. Raising a child in South Dakota, as a single parent, to age 18 costs $197,010.00! That figures out to be about $912.00 each month. This amount covers housing, food, transportation, clothing, healthcare, childcare/education, and miscellaneous expenses. Non-custodial parents tend to argue that the money is not being spent "on the child". I would argue that the money being spent to maintain the household IS being spent "on the child". I believe that each parent should be responsible for half of the cost to raise the child. I think there should be a minimum amount set by the state that every non-custodial parent would be obligated to pay. Then based on income, if they could afford more, the courts could set it accordingly. If there was more than one child in the same family to support, the additional amount could be adjusted down for the younger children because some of the expenses would already be covered (such as housing and transportation).

If everyone knew that there was a minimum standard amount in place in South Dakota, I feel that this would encourage people to think of the consequences before conceiving a child. I think that a minimum standard amount set by the state would ensure that EVERY child gets the care that he/she needs and deserves. We have No Child Left Behind in our school systems, now we need to make sure that No Child is Left Behind when it comes to child support.

Implementation of this program could be very smooth because of the systems that are already in place. Our child support modification process would allow any amount over the standard to be easily negotiated. With our state child support system that is already in place, the non-custodial parent makes payments to the Child Support Payment Center in Pierre. Then this amount is documented in the computer and disbursed to the family. There is a toll-free number that either parent can call to find out when the last payment was made, any balance that is owed, and any restrictions that have been placed on the case. I think that it would be relatively easy to add another option to the system. With this option, on the first day of a new month, if the previous month’s amount (or any past due amount) is due, a message could be added under the restrictions. The message could state, "The non-custodial parent has passed the allowable amount of past due support. Visitation shall be declined until payment has been made." The system is already updated daily, so both parents could always know what the visitation status is.

One last issue would be if extraordinary circumstances arise for the non-custodial parent. I would argue that if the non-custodial parent goes to jail/prison, that child support payments NOT be modified. It is not the child’s fault, or the custodial parent’s fault that the non-custodial parent behaved irresponsibly. The amount of child support would accumulate while the individual was incarcerated. When he/she is released from incarceration there would be a time of "no visitation" while they catch up on the past due amount. This time would be a safety-net for the child so that they don’t re-establish a relationship with the non-custodial parent until he/she is stable. In cases in which there is job loss or sickness, I would also argue that unless there was an extreme sickness or disability of the non-custodial parent that the child support amount not be dropped below the state minimum standard. The custodial parent has to figure out how to manage during these inevitable challenges. Why should it be different for the non-custodial parent? Plus, as I already mentioned, this would add further stress to a child’s life if their custodial parent has to work more hours, or an additional job to make up the difference.

Now, I call you to act on this. Please re-evaluate our child support and visitation laws, so that these laws truly look out for the best interest of the child.