Exactly. Most states have gone to a pay-through-the-state system of collecting child support where payments are made to the state’s agency either directly or (more often) through paycheck withholding/garnishment whether the participants wish to or not. In fact, in Kansas (probably other states as well) one must file a motion and get a ruling on being allowed to circumvent the state’s system and pay child support directly. In Kansas at least, it is not granted lightly as it makes things much more difficult to prove payments (or no payment) if there is a dispute. (And too, the state gets to tack on “collection fees” and take a cut, but that is the more cynical way to view it.)
Paying through such a system it is easy to keep the custodial parent’s information sealed, up to and including her identity (in the case of rape). The rapist/father would make the payments to Kansas SRS (obviously if the case were in Kansas) and then SRS would disburse it to the mother, while all publicly available records would read only “Case No. XXXXXXXX Date XX/XX/XX Amt Rcvd. $XXX, Amt. Disbursed $XXX”. Easy, peasy, lemon-squeazy.
And going back a few posts re: not divorcing while pregnant (regardless of who the biological father is)… The states that have this rule of law do so merely to prevent “illegitimate” children. It may be antiquated, but that is it. The state does not want to create “bastard children” and then have to use state resources to either prove paternity or help support said children through public assistance programs. That this law doesn’t really prevent that (in the cases of disputed paternity after divorce) doesn’t seem to matter- since when do laws have to actually work or make sense? And it doesn’t seem like it is going away any time soon (especially in Texas).
Attempts have been made by noncustodial parents denied visitation rights to force contact by withholding child support payments and trying to make the custodial parent sue (thus initiating contact). There are other methods a suitably unscrupulous individual could use to exert influence over their victim through abuse of child support laws, and I feel it’s best for all involved to cut the rapist off entirely.
That wouldn’t work in most places, at least not anymore. When it is being handled through the state, it would be the state “suing” when the obligor stops paying. If the mother’s identity or whereabouts are being protected she and the child would be nowhere near the courtroom nor would it be considered “contact” in any legal sense.
Even in “normal” child support cases, where the obligor has visitation and/or joint custody, the custodial parent’s input or presence is not necessary for child support enforcement, and oftentimes the obligor is “sued” for non-payment of child support against the custodial parent’'s wishes or without their knowledge. It all depends on how it is handled in that state and through which agency.
And I think rape survivors should be allowed some measure of control over their own lives, rather than have some third party decide what is best for them.
There’s nothing stopping the mother from collecting child support as she can, without revealing her identity. Sure, she might not be able to count on it, and she might have little recourse if she didn’t receive it, but she might decide that was better than nothing.
Just to add a data point, at least through 2008, the State of Nebraska gets none of the child support money as any collection fee. Every payment I sent them was entirely sent on to the ex. I don’t know about any other states.
In Kansas, the child support that my husband is supposed to receive was figured like this: Child Support Due: $XXX State Collection Fee: $5.00 (or whatever it is, it is not much) Total Due: ( $XXX + $5.00)
So Mom sends (or it is withheld from her paychecks when she has a job) her total to the Kansas Payment Center, and the Child Support Due amount is then placed in his account.
