Iowa Senator Totally Thinks You Should Be Drug Tested For Those Child Support Payments

child supportStalking your ex’s Facebook account for damning evidence in court is certainly a questionable past-time. But for those parents who routinely receive child support from dutiful exes, one Iowa senator named Mark Chelgren thinks that you should submit to drug testing — and just because your ex says so.

Senator Mark Chelgren totally proposed an amendment to a budget bill stating that your baby’s mother or father could demand to have you drug tested as often as every six months before forking over those payments. His amendment was inspired by a colleague of his who is having some family drama:

The proposal came from Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa who said he was pushing the idea on behalf of an unidentified constituent who believed his ex was using child support money for illegal drugs.

A person paying child support under Chelgren’s proposal could require the recipient to a drug test every six months as long as they pay the costs. reports that some Democrats “openly laughed” during Chelgren’s proposal of the amendment, which he eventually withdrew. Senator Jack Hatch quickly envisioned this bit of legislation being vastly manipulated between bitter parents, which Chelgreen denied. Hatch reportedly said:

“[He] told the Senate that he believes the proposal is anti-woman and could unfairly be used by vindictive spouses. He further expressed concerns that the proposal would clog the court system.”

Close call there, mommies. But perhaps ready a blood, saliva, or hair sample in that effort to obtain the funds necessary to raise your kids.

(photo: JCREATION/Shutterstock)

Be Sociable, Share!
Be Sociable, Share!
  • Another Steph

    Call me a woman hater if you want but I don’t see the outrage here. If I thought my ex was doing drugs around my children and/or taking care of them while under the influence, damn straight I’d want to be able to do something about it.

  • K.

    This stuff makes me gnash my teeth because this is about protecting a non-custodial parent’s money–it has nothing to do with protecting the welfare of a child.

    First of all, if you are paying child support, then you are a non-custodial parent, meaning that chances are, you are taking on less responsibility–or none at all–for your child (this isn’t the case in ALL situations, but it’s generally how it works). In other words, if someone other than you is taking care of your child, then you essentially have to pay them to do that (hence, child support). If you found that your ex is using child support to do drugs, then the primary issue is the welfare of the child and custody over the child–NOT what happens to your money. In such a case, the child should be removed from the household and their custodianship would be transferred to another caregiver–perhaps a relative or the State. Or the non-custodial parent can sue for full custody. But guess what–none of these scenarios will exempt a non-custodial parent from paying child support. Either they’ll just pay it to a different payee, or, if they got full custody, they’ll assume full financial responsibility anyway. So the real issue is the welfare of the child; the support money is a moot point. And this law distorts that fact, supplanting the very real needs of the child–the person most affected by the situation and the person who suffers the most–with financial reparations for a non-custodial parent.

    I mean, in the end, if you’re one such non-custodial parent and you really care about how the money you send is being spent, then maybe you should take care of the kid yourself. And that would entail fighting for custody and taking care of the kid, not fighting to get your money back and screwing the kid.

    (And besides–I would bet that there are FAR MORE single parents who are not getting their due child support payments because it’s their deadbeat exes that are spending the money on drugs. And is there a law requiring such deadbeats to drug-test every 6 months?)