Note this article contains references to DV and abuse.
Child trafficking within the family court system is hidden from the public. The state courts, intended to protect children’s welfare, are entangled in a web of financial incentives that prioritize profits over the well-being of children. Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, established to support child support enforcement, has created a federal-state partnership where the focus shifts to financial recoveries. More troubling is the intersection of Title IV-D with Title IV-E, which funds foster care and adoption services. A growing body of evidence suggests that these problems are willfully designed to exploit children for profit. How much profit? All estimates reach into the billions. This article serves as a primer to understand how these funding streams create vulnerabilities, leading to the exploitation of children in the family court crises.
This harrowing account by Jane Doe #16 is just one example of how the family court system fails to protect the most vulnerable.It is worth noting that many of the Jane Does, such as Jane Doe #16, do not speak English as a first language, and were not provided a translator, though one was requested, for any family court proceedings. This is not an uncommon scenario:
While pregnant, my children’s father pushed me into a mirror causing it to break and cut me… I have been diagnosed with a Traumatic Brain Injury due to physical abuse and asphyxiation from strangulation. Despite this, the court labeled me with an ’emotional impairment’ because of my PTSD diagnosis from his abuse, and now my children’s father has full custody of our children.
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, established in 1975, was created to for children to receive financial support from non-custodial parents. It created a federal-state partnership, where states receive federal funds to enforce child support obligations. The federal government matches more than half of state expenditures, providing an incentive for states to maximize collections. However, this funding structure leads to conflicts of interest. Especially when considering that “Private Parties,” is an allowable line item costs for states to receive federal reimbursement for expenditures. These private parties are largely unregulated and include reunification services, private pay Guardian Ad Litems and other custody evaluators. The emphasis on financial recoveries, as opposed to child welfare, raises concerns about whether the system serves the best interests of children.
Title IV-E, on the other hand, provides funding for foster care and adoption services. While the intent is to support children in need of safe homes, the financial incentives attached to these funds creates a conflict of interest. States receive up to 66% federal reimbursements for children placed in foster care, which leads to the removal of children from their families. This is particularly concerning when combined with the discretionary power of family courts, such as the ability of Family Court to seal their own records, combined with Judicial immunity which often extends to custody evaluators on state payroll, and the fact that there are no criminal penalties in family court. There is no gate built in to prevent decisions influenced by the financial benefits associated with Title IV-E funding.
The story of Jane Doe #8 highlights how the intersection of Title IV-D and Title IV-E funding can strip parents of their rights and their children, often due to financial and systemic pressures that overlook the true best interests of the child.
I was an immigrant stay-at-home mother, primary caretaker to three children. After three years of litigation, I was unrepresented at trial and failed to prove domestic violence. Due to an ’emotional impairment,’ I was only given every other weekend with my children. Now, I have supervised visitation, and I’ll likely never be able to afford to go back to court to modify this order.
Put simply, this system is held together only by the good faith that Americans put toward those in positions of public service– what other industry operates on the assumption that people will make the right choice, when the right choice runs opposite of profit? When the cost is the long-term extended abuse and exploitation of our children? As Keith Harmon Snow, the author of The Worst Interests of the Child: The Trafficking of Children and Parents through U.S. Family Courts, puts it: “The underlying assumption is that the judges themselves are not criminals.”
The intersection of Title IV-D and Title IV-E creates a financial landscape where the welfare of children is secondary to the pursuit of federal funds. Under Title IV-D, states are incentivized to pursue aggressive child support enforcement, at the expense of the child’s overall well-being. For example, a parent may be driven into financial ruin through relentless enforcement measures, ultimately destabilizing the child’s life. The focus on maximizing collections, rather than addressing the unique needs of each child, leadsto adverse outcomes, racketerring, and judicial trafficking without accountability due to blanket immunity.
Similarly, Title IV-E funding leads to perverse incentives where children are removed from their homes not because it is in their best interest, but because it generates federal reimbursements for the state. This can result in children being placed in foster care or adopted out, even when there are viable alternatives that would allow them to remain with their families. The financial pressures on states to secure Title IV-E funds can contribute to decisions that are not aligned with the best interests of the child.
“I have survived and am enduring all 30 items as defined in the current state definition of Coercive Control… My abuser ousted me and our children from our home that I own. We lost everything, including our pets, and were made homeless, homeless with his own children, while he lived in my home for free for more than a year. Despite this, the court granted him primary custody, subjecting my children to continued abuse.”
Jane Doe #21’s experience is a powerful testament to the pervasive failures within the family court system, where abusive individuals are often granted custody, leaving victims and their children to suffer the consequences of a system that values financial recovery over justice.
Family courts, which are supposed to be guardians of children’s welfare, are complicit in these failures. Judges and court-appointed professionals, such as Guardians ad Litem (GALs), may be swayed by the financial implications of their decisions rather than focusing solely on the best interests of the child.
Further Reading:
- Edwards, E. E., Middleton, J. S., & Cole, J. (2024). “Family-controlled trafficking in the United States: Victim characteristics, system response, and case outcomes.”
- Goodman, M., & Laurence, J. (2014). “Child trafficking victims and the state courts.”
- Middleton, J., & Edwards, E. (2020). “A five-year analysis of child trafficking in the United States: Exploring case characteristics and outcomes to inform child welfare system response.”
