California has been getting pretty creative in their attempts to create revenue to help pay for the huge amount of single mothers on the welfare rolls.
Absentee parents (primarily fathers) have long been the thorn in the side of reform movements trying to get parents to support their children at least financially. California like many other states have had to change their laws to do so. States now have streamlined the process, and have been much more likely to enter default judgments, shorten the time for fathers to dispute paternity, as well as curb the remedies for being wrongly named a parent.
Using these tactics the states have been unbelievably successful at recouping money for mothers and to repay the welfare system “…[C]hild support collection nationwide jumped from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $19 billion in 2001, while paternity establishments more than doubled, from 659,000 in 1994 to 1.6 million just five years later”
Unfortunately this streamlined system has drawbacks, often from “sewer service” in which in inadequate service leads to huge increases in default judgments. More than half of the judgments entered are default judgments, begging the question: Has judicial expediency been increased at the expense of citizens rights?