By Michael Phillips | The Thunder Report & Father & Co.
On June 30, 2025, the Maryland Supreme Court issued a sweeping, unanimous decision in In the Matter of the Marriage of Houser, affirming that parents cannot waive child support—even by mutual agreement—because child support is a right of the child, not a bargaining chip between parents. The ruling makes one thing clear: when it comes to financial obligations, the court has no hesitation asserting its power in the name of the child’s “best interest.”
But here’s the question no one in the Maryland judiciary dares ask:
If child support is a right that cannot be waived because it belongs to the child—why is the right to custody, time, and love from both parents treated as optional, unenforceable, or worse, subject to endless obstruction?
A Tale of Two Rights
The Houser ruling stemmed from a seemingly amicable divorce agreement between Erica Hall and Nicholas Houser, who tried to structure a co-parenting arrangement that prioritized flexibility over state intervention. They agreed to waive child support, with Houser absorbing additional responsibilities—like transportation and giving up his share of the marital home—arguably providing real, tangible support in a cooperative co-parenting framework.
But the courts didn’t see cooperation. They saw a threat to their authority.
Justice Angela Eaves, writing for the Court, ruled that child support “belongs to the child,” making it legally untouchable even by two fit, involved parents trying to work out a solution together. Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown, always eager to flex the state’s control over family autonomy, backed the decision in an amicus brief.
Meanwhile, across the state, tens of thousands of fit and loving parents—mostly fathers—are begging these same courts to enforce custody and visitation orders that were already signed and sealed. These parents are routinely denied access to their children. Not because of abuse or danger. But because enforcing custody doesn’t fund the state.
The System Isn’t Broken—It’s Built This Way
Let’s not pretend this is a bureaucratic oversight. This is deliberate legal design.
- Child support enforcement is tied to Title IV-D federal incentive funding.
The more support orders the state enforces, the more money flows in from Washington. - Custody enforcement? No federal bonus. No performance incentives. No automated systems. No office dedicated to helping noncustodial parents see their children.
When a parent is behind on support, Maryland courts will garnish wages, intercept tax refunds, suspend driver’s licenses, and even jail offenders—all in the name of the child. But when a parent is denied visitation? They’re told to hire an attorney, file a motion, and wait six months—if the court even hears it.
And that’s if you’re lucky enough to be believed.
Constitutional Rights for Some—Not for Fathers?
In Houser, the parents invoked Troxel v. Granville (2000), arguing that fit parents have a constitutional right to make decisions in their child’s best interest without government interference. The Court disagreed, saying that financial support is different—because it’s a child’s right.
But what about the child’s right to emotional support, bonding, and ongoing connection with both parents?
If a fit parent chooses to waive support in favor of shared custody or equal parenting time—time proven to benefit children long-term—why is that constitutional interest discarded while child support is weaponized?
Because the family court system doesn’t operate on constitutional logic.
It operates on funding logic.
The Real Consequences: Parental Alienation by Policy
While the media praises the Houser decision for “protecting children,” they ignore the silent epidemic affecting millions: parental alienation—the court-enabled severing of the parent-child bond, often through false accusations, biased rulings, or simple inaction.
Here’s what alienated parents in Maryland and across the country experience:
- Court orders for custody ignored by the custodial parent.
- Police unwilling to intervene because “family court is civil.”
- Judges refusing to enforce visitation for years while enforcing child support down to the penny.
- Parents labeled “deadbeats” even while being denied contact with their child.
This isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s state-sanctioned child deprivation—and it destroys families, silently and legally.
A Call for Real Reform
If Maryland’s courts believe support is a child’s right that cannot be waived, then equal parenting and custody enforcement must be treated the same way.
That means:
- Enforcing court-ordered visitation and custody with the same rigor as support.
- Penalizing parents who obstruct contact with the other parent, just as we do for nonpayment.
- Ending the financial conflict of interest baked into Title IV-D enforcement.
- Restoring constitutional protections for both parents—not just when it suits the state.
Until that happens, Maryland—and states across the nation—will continue sending a message loud and clear:
“We care about your child’s money. But not your child’s mom or dad.”
The Thunder Report and Father & Co. will continue exposing this double standard, one family at a time.
If you’ve been denied access to your child while being forced to pay support, share your story with us. It’s time to make this injustice visible.
#LetMeSeeMyChild
#RightsAreNotJustFinancial
#FixFamilyCourt
