There are a number of issues withing regulation 16-916.01 that are leaving interpretations for how those steps are to be carried out that are tearing apart black families and leaving children without the support of both parents. The petition to change Regulation 16-916.01 must start with stating what is wrong with it. Child support and custody should be written to the benefit of the child, not the convenience of the parents. This is a detailed list of the issues with Regulation 16-916.01.

16-916.01 b In every action for divorce or custody, and in every proceeding for protection involving an intrafamily offense, instituted pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 16, where a party has a legal duty to pay support to another party, the judicial officer shall inquire into the parties’ child support arrangements. If the party entitled to child support has not requested support, or if the parties have agreed against the entry of a support order, the judicial officer shall advise the parties, regardless of whether they are represented by counsel, of the parties’ entitlement to receive and obligation to pay child support under the guideline.

With every order of child support, joint-custody and alternating visitation should be automatic to ensure both parents are held equally responsible for the child. Visitation can be alternating weekends if alternating weeks impedes on the child’s education, otherwise, visitation should be alternating weeks for equal responsibility.

16-916-01 c-1 The guideline shall set forth an equitable approach to child support in which both parents share legal responsibility for the support of the child

This is most times contradictory to what happens. One parent pays child support and the other uses that support as a sole means to take care of the child, especially in cases where the custodial parent has no income other than TANF. The custody parent is not providing for the support of the child, the state is. With numerous threats of discontinuing welfare, nothing has been done to ensure both parents are employed other than continued trainings and job searches which provide numerous arenas to continue welfare. With the new restructure of child support, both parents are required to be fully employed. Support comes from the state as a percentage of their gross income. A time frame is given to become employed otherwise charges of neglect are given with eventual criminal charges surrounded around neglect not nonpayment.

16-916.01 c-2 The subsistence needs of each parent shall be taken into account in the determination of child support.

              In a number of instances the alternate parents needs are not taken into consideration when child support is put in place. There are a number of homeless fathers due to an inability to provide housing for themselves due to the overwhelming amount of child support. There are a number of parents ducking gainful employment to be able to survive without child support garnishing their entire check. There are a number of parents bringing home no more than $20 forcing whatever individual they are in a relationship with at the time to have to take care of them while they provide for another household where the custodial parent may or may not be employed. There are a number of individuals who had high paying jobs at the onset of child support that could not get it adjusted once they no longer had that high paying employment and are barely able to maintain due to child support.

16-916.01 c-3 A parent has the responsibility to meet the child’s basic needs, as well as to provide additional child support above the basic needs level.

A parent cannot do this if they are being held responsible for taking care of two households, this should be within their own household, but it is not specified here and the sole responsibility of the child is being placed on the parent that does not reside with them, with little to no accountability other than assistance being placed on the parent who the child remains in custody with. When the custodial/residential parent struggles, the noncustodial/nonresidential parent is blamed instead of the custodial/residential parent being held responsible for contributing their part.

16-916.01 c-4 Application of the guideline shall be gender neutral.

Many men feel that in court, the women are shown favoritism to the point that they no longer contest the unfair practices as they feel they do not have a voice. 

16-916-01 d-5 Each parent shall receive a deduction from gross income for each child living in the parent’s home for whom the parent owes a legal duty to pay support, if the child is not subject to the support order. The amount of the deduction shall be calculated by determining the basic child support obligation for the additional child in the parent’s home pursuant to subsection (f)(2) of this section, using only the income of the parent entitled to the deduction. This figure shall be multiplied by 75%, and the resulting amount subtracted from the parent’s gross income before the child support obligation is computed.

              Child support should not be applied per child. It is providing an incentive to have children to collect a larger check from the father’s which then adds to the number of children the state has to support in other avenues. Only food and daycare stipends should be provided by child. Monetary income should be applied as a percentage of gross income earned. This should not only be available for low-income, it should be available for 5 figure salaries up to 60k with assistance always remaining at 20% of their gross. Middle class single parent homes need assistance too as they have built families off of two full incomes and are now struggling to maintain that same standard of living for their children post divorce, separation, etc. To maintain this in both households requires assistance. Assistance is needed but they are told they make too much. Also, to continuously refer to someone as low income is derogatory and demeaning. Emphasis should not be placed on income class, but rather focus on parenting, they are single parents, regardless of the income bracket, assist them.

The rest of the guideline applies to child support as it is currently set up and would not apply to the restructured outline as proposed.

§ 46–225.02. Criminal contempt remedy for failure to pay child support

(a) The Mayor or a party who has a legal claim to child support may initiate a criminal contempt action for failure to pay the support by filing a motion in the civil action in which the support order was established.

This is a blanketed violation of Federal Mandate 28 U.S. Code § 2007 which abolishes debtors prison. Child support is not a civil matter, this is a family court matter. 

Per DC Courts:

The Civil Division has jurisdiction over any civil action or action in equity (excluding family matters) brought in the District of Columbia, except where jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Federal Court. (Ref: https://www.dccourts.gov/superior-court/civil-division#:~:text=The%20Civil%20Division%20has%20jurisdiction,vested%20in%20the%20Federal%20Court)

Civil court is used for disputes of property and breeches of contracts/agreements. Slavery was abolished in 1865. Per the 13th amendment, people cannot be considered property-to include children. The contracts referred to for civil matters are contracts of services being rendered, not child support contracts. A contract is defined as a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law. To place child support as a civil matter infers slavery and trafficking (barter of payments) within the court. Slavery is the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised. The elements of human trafficking can be described using a three-element framework focused on the trafficker's 1) acts; 2) means; and 3) purpose. The elements of human trafficking can be applied in the following way: the act is the placement of a price on a child's life, the means is via the child support/custody contract, and the purpose is to place the parent in an unlawful civil contract as a means to incarcerate them when they are unable to pay which is debtor's prison. This many times crosses state lines. All three elements are essential to form a human trafficking violation. The grey area of the law is the area left for personal interpretation, but it is also the area of loopholes where things are not specifically defined allowing manipulation of the law. So basically the criminalization occurs with the breech of a civil order, however the civil order is illegal. As it states, civil court does not dwell in family matters, however a whole division has been created to address family matters within the civil court with no thought to the laws being violated with this shift in jurisdiction. The process of criminalizing child support is illegal and we cannot suffer it any longer!