Foster Children and Child Support

ATLANTA (AP) — Anna (not her real name), has a story beginning in 2018 when she first sought help from Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services. That’s when she and her six daughters became homeless. Her ex-boyfriend was arrested after she learned he was sexually abusing one of them. Despite working three jobs, Martinez couldn’t afford rent, so they were evicted.

As a result, the agency placed her children in foster care. She was among the 700 families who had children removed due to “inadequate housing”, which usually means homeless or non-stable housing. That, in itself, is another argument. That said, keep in mind, another sibling and I were removed from our home at the ages of one and two – just prior to the birth of LBJ’s welfare nation.

Hundreds of low-income parents in Georgia, whose kids were sent to foster care, have been billed years of child support they say they can’t afford. In Anna’s case, she was ordered to pay $100 per month until officially being ordered to pay $472 per month, despite living below the federal poverty line. She has filed a lawsuit. If she has no money… well, I’m assuming it’s pro bono.

The lawsuit argues that state agencies knew these families were impoverished and couldn’t afford to pay foster care fees, but charged them anyway. Well, good! Taxpayers didn’t bring these children into the world – the parents did – and the parents should pay – if not now, eventually.

The lawsuit also asks the state to stop seeking child support for most children who have aged out of the system (which I disagree with if back pay is due), or have been adopted (which do I agree with).

This story has a glitch, though. Anna eventually gave up parental rights for all six daughters at the agency’s urging. In my mind, giving up parental rights should release one from support and put it on the foster parents who are, in theory, that child’s new parents. I know my foster parents received some funding, but it’s too late to follow the money trail and its origins.

There is also a second glitch. Two of Martinez’ daughters have been adopted (which should release Anna), three have aged out of foster care (for which any back pay should be due), and one is expecting adoption soon. Yet the state still seeks the full $472 per month.

In addition, Anna now stays home to care for the two children she has custody of. So that means she has eight children, not six. Has she never heard of birth control? She has a partner, whose income goes towards child support. The article fails to mention whether the partner is a father of any of the children. All tolled, she owed over $13,000. A nonprofit raised money to cover that, so I guess that frees her up for the lawyers.

The moral of the story: If you can’t afford children, DON’T HAVE EIGHT OF THEM!