Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / August 2006

Let's all play - "Can you spot the Spin!"
---------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/15321071.htm

Dispute looms about child support measure's potential cost
DALE WETZEL
Associated Press
BISMARCK, N.D. - Even before a proposed child custody initiative has been
approved for the ballot, an argument is raging about whether its language
would cost North Dakota $71 million over two years in federal aid to
families.

The possibility, raised by a regional U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services administrator who was asked to review the measure, has prompted
charges of bureaucratic intimidation. However, state officials must take it
seriously, said Carol Olson, director of North Dakota's Department of Human
Services.

"When you run as many programs as we do that depend on federal funding, you
have to make sure that you adhere to the rules very carefully," Olson said.
"These are programs that affect families and children, and we can't lose
sight of that."

The ballot initiative requires joint child custody arrangements in divorces,
if one of the former spouses wants the option and both are considered fit
parents.

It limits either parent's child support payment to "the actual cost of
providing for the basic needs" of the couple's child or children.

Supporters of the initiatives turned in petitions, which they said had about
17,000 signatures, to Secretary of State Al Jaeger two weeks ago. Jaeger has
until Sept. 12 to review whether the petition has the minimum of 12,844
names it needs to get the measure on the ballot.

The initiative does not define "actual costs" or "basic needs." Mitchell
Sanderson, of Grand Forks, who is the chairman of the initiative campaign,
said it would be up to the Legislature to do so, and to make any necessary
changes in North Dakota's child support rules.

North Dakota's Department of Human Services asked federal officials to
evaluate the measure's effect on federal spending in North Dakota for child
support enforcement and a welfare program called Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families.

Thomas Sullivan, a regional administrator for the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, said in a letter that if the initiative does not comply
with federal law, North Dakota could lose its federal child support aid and
TANF grants.

"Due to the gravity of the consequences that may result, we urge you to take
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that initiated measures are not
enacted that would render the state's statutes out of compliance with the
federal law," it says.

Sullivan's letter was sent to state Sen. Tom Fischer, R-Fargo, who is one of
two legislative members of an advisory committee that reviews North Dakota's
child support guidelines. The other is state Rep. Bill Devlin, R-Finley.

Olson said the sum could equal $71 million during the state's next two-year
budget period, which begins July 1. Mike Schwindt, North Dakota's child
support enforcement director, said the measure raises a number of questions
about whether it can meet federal guidelines.

"What exactly does actual cost mean? Basic care?" Schwindt said. "I have
more questions than I have answers at this point."

Sanderson and R. Mark Rogers, an Atlanta economist and child support
specialist, said state law and rules could be changed to conform to the
initiative if it is approved. State officials' talk about the possible loss
of federal funds is "clearly misleading," Rogers said.

Guidelines that outline the cost of raising children, which could vary
according to the parents' income and the amount of time each parent spends
with a child, could be drafted that would conform to federal rules, Rogers
said.

"There's nothing in the federal regulations that disallow a cost table based
on basic needs," Rogers said. "It's the kind of thing that makes for an
interesting political discussion. There are different ways of defining it."

Sanderson and Stephen Baskerville, president of an organization called the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, said Sullivan's letter
exaggerated the potential financial effects of the initiative, and amounted
to an attempt to suppress it.

"Those who argue that federal funds are used for 'extortion' could hardly
find a clearer illustration," the two men wrote in an op-ed column.

Olson argued that North Dakota voters, when deciding whether to support the
measure, should know whether it could result in the loss of federal support,
which state taxpayers may be asked to make up.

"If this is what the voters want to do, I think that's fine," Olson said.
"But the voters should make decisions based on the reality of a situation,
that it could very likely cost the state of North Dakota a pretty good sum
of money."