title iv-d

93 Year-Old Billionaire Pays Child Support — On Another Man’s Child

by
Not a 93-year-old-billionare paying child support.

[This article from 2010 highlights the futility of money when it comes to high profile cases where bribery via campaign contributions is more difficult.]

What do you call it when you fake paternity test results, lie in court, then use the justice system to defraud a 93 year old man (albeit a billionaire) out of millions? Right, fraud. Perjury. Felony theft. But not in family court. Here we call that: The best interests of the child!

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/kerkorian-to-pay-1025-million-in-child-support/1844904/

While we may have little pity for billionaires who sit on the sidelines and let the family law racket operate with impunity, fraud is fraud and should be punished accordingly, not rewarded. In this case:

Billionaire Kirk Kerkorian agreed Friday to  pay more than $10 million in back child support plus $100,000 a  month for a child his ex-wife has admitted is not his biological  daughter.
    
Lisa Bonder Kerkorian, who was married briefly to the casino  mogul after a long relationship, acknowledged during a child  support battle that she had faked a DNA paternity test by using  saliva she obtained from Kerkorian’s adult daughter. She said the  biological father actually was Hollywood movie producer Stephen  Bing.

The settlement, which provides $100,000 a month until Kira turns 19 or until she graduates from high school, no longer is a full-time student or no longer is living with her mother full-time. After that, the settlement says, the child support will be reduced to $50,000 a month.

The agreement also provides for Kerkorian to pay expenses including school costs, equestrian expense, clothing, housing, travel, hobbies, automobile, food, beauty treatments, tutoring, entertainment, parties and pets.

Now this case gets even stranger. Not only did she not go to jail, but the private investigators who uncovered the fraud (utilizing illegal [for them] wiretapping) ended up in jail for wiretapping. Despite having uncovered a crime. Why were the police not doing this? In addition, Lisa Kerkorian was already collecting child support from the actual father since 2002.

What we see time and time again is that celebrities such as Brad Pitt, Alec Baldwin, and countless others are not immune to the racketeering that is happening throughout the country. In certain jurisdictions no amount of money will buy your way out. In this case, the 100,000 plus all expenses in the above paragraph will likely end up going through the state’s Child Support Collection Agency–which will then see 66% matching from the federal government (AKA your tax dollars) on the award ($10.25 million). That means they are likely going to get $6,600,000 million just for allowing this case to go forward. How is the state supposed to be impartial when they have the same to gain as the guilty party?

Incentive is everything. We cannot expect the direction to change while the carrot of Title IV-D continues to direct the courts.

Politics & Title IV-D

by

“Those socialist democrats are at fault! The republicans created this!” (what the Facebook feed screams daily)

Title IV-D is not a partisan problem. Though it was originally passed by republicans (Ford) to reduce welfare spending, it has grown into a problem exacerbated by both parties over time. The right argues against it in that it is more bloated government, democrats are appalled about the encroachment of civil liberties (via incarceration) and equality, while the libertarians have a fundamental issue in that government has absolutely no place in family–it is a community issue. We all agree on the solution. We even agree on most of the methods of getting there. So when I read my colleagues in the fight against this proclaiming that a party is in a certain position for or against it, it is disappointing as it only serves to isolate and polarize the remainder of the community. Title IV-D is not a partisan problem. Both parties have failed to pass any meaningful reform in the last several decades.

In 2018 president Obama enacted an executive order that sought to limit child support based incarceration. When president Trump came into office, he was swift to remove as many of those executive orders as possible, but did in fact leave that order alone. In all fairness, for a politician to secure office they are at the mercy of the public at large and the opinions of the masses. Politicians will not touch this issue due to the effectiveness of the lobbies that actively promote monikers such as “deadbeats” and women’s groups who seek the ability to have men incarcerated without evidence. The attorney lobbies (the bar) have made this even more problematic, while the psychologists who greatly profit from this continue to support the current inequalities as well. This is what is preventing progress, not the political parties themselves.

In reality Title IV-D has spiraled so far out of control that no rational individual can support it given all the facts. A republican should be appalled at the amount of federal spending to support these state efforts, that serve no economic purpose in the grand scheme of things. No democrat would support mass incarceration, especially that of minorities, based on inability to pay. And certainly no libertarian would ever support this level of encroachment by the government into the family. No reasonable person ever should.

With that said, reach out to your local representatives, regardless of party. Hold each one accountable. Go to the town halls, present the issue and elicit a response. Do not let them avoid the question. Make appointments with their staff, sit down for one to one meetings and discuss your case, and how their role can impact change. For state level reps discuss state level issues, for federal level officials discuss Title IV-D and judicial accountability legislation. This is what we desperately need, not to be standing in our own way, isolated on our political islands.

What the Law Should Look Like

by

The current laws are set up to disincentivise shared parenting and create a situation where there is a custodial parent and a visitor. The reason for this is that SSA Title IV Part D specifically rewards the states based on how much support they collect, matching up to dollar for dollar. This means that the money we all contribute towards OUR social security, is being funneled to the states. While there needs to be some incentive towards enforcing support in cases where a parent chooses to entirely leave the family, the following elements would make the law more just while making the sure that it really is set up with the interests of the children in mind.

Custody:

  • Shared parenting is the default regardless of prior arrangements, unless a parent does not want their share, or has a proven inability to do so (severe mental illness, substance abuse, violence etc…)
  • Anything less must meet the same burden of proof as criminal trials, as constitutional rights should only be able to be taken away in criminal cases. Contempt proceedings can trump those rights currently, thus anything leading to contempt must meet that standard.
  • Right of first refusal should be by default and irrevocable. Barring anything in paragraph 2, there should not be resources utilized to care for the kids if the other parent is available and willing.

Support:

  • Caps. No more than fixed percentage of income, and no more than a specified amount per child (whichever is less) as appropriate for the geographic region. A spouse is not a retirement plan nor an insurance policy.
  • Accountability. Child support should be audited to ensure that the parent is spending the money on the children.
  • Penalties must be addressed. License suspensions must be removed as the possibility of incarceration. Adding another mouth to feed in the prison system while removing an individual from the workforce does nothing to help the children nor the state. Those pathological enough to choose this alternative over receiving what support they do get, should not be the ones allowed to dictate their children’s future.
  • No payment in alienation cases. Should a parent be found to be alienating the other parent, support should be removed.
  • Income calculations must be capped at a 40 hour work week, exclude overtime, and based on actual income and not hypothetical income. Currently the law allows for courts to make up their own numbers without the need for any evidence.

Other Factors:

  • Penalties for false domestic violence/abuse accusations. This does not mean that every case where abuse is unproven has the tables turned on the other party, but should there be evidence (i.e. a recording of threats of false accusations) then the other party should serve and equal or harsher penalty for making such accusation.
  • Remove Title IV-D funding from sates not compliant with the basic outlines.
  • Substantially limit child support amounts in shared custody cases. Several states that do have shared parenting, have created child support guidelines that still maximize transfer of funds from one party to the other with the goal of collecting Title IV-D funding. Being divorced should not be a taxable source of revenue!
  • Reform family court procedure. An individual should be able to navigate this arena without the need for a costly attorney, therapists, expert witnesses, GALs, and many others. This alone will reduce a massive financial burden in our society, and pass that on to our children. A social worker should be appointed instead of a GAL. We do not need lawyers deciding what is best for children, but those who actually know mental health and families.
  • Jury trials. Currently the same judges who benefit from the Title IV-D revenue are the ones deciding the cases. This is a clear conflict of interest. An impartial jury would be removed from these incentives and best able to rule on the matter.