Child Support and Child Welfare System Interactions: Examining the Potential Economic Mechanisms Linking Child Support Cost-Recovery Orders to Reunification from Foster Care

Lawrence M. Berger, Maria Cancian, Anna Ko, and Jessica Pac
April 2026
CSRA-2024-2026-T5-D2
Link to CSRA-2024-2026-T5-D2-Full-Report-Rev-04012026 (PDF)

Federal policy allows state and local governments to issue cost-recovery child support orders to recoup some of their foster care expenses. Prior research found that cost-recovery orders lead to longer stays in foster care, decrease the likelihood of reunification, and increase the likelihood of termination of parental rights (TPR). Associated arrears accumulation also leads to an increased probability that children will re-enter foster care. Recent Federal guidance discourages cost-recovery order assignment except in rare circumstances, and some Wisconsin counties have discontinued the practice. In this context, we examine whether changes in custodial parents’ economic resources underlie the relationship between foster care cost-recovery orders and a reduced likelihood of reunification and increased likelihood of TPR.

We first describe custodial parents’ child support, earned, and transfer income sources before, during, and after a child is placed in out-of-home-care (OHC), whether there are differences between families with and without cost-recovery orders, and estimate the extent to which changes in income serve to explain the relation of child support cost-recovery order assignment with reunification and TPR. We use data spanning 2008-2023 on OHC placements, reunifications, TPRs, child support enforcement actions, employment and earnings, child and family demographics, and participation in the W2/TANF, SNAP, UI, SSI, and SSDI programs, drawn from the Wisconsin Administrative Data Core (WADC). Our sample consists of 19,048 Wisconsin mothers who experienced the placement in OHC of all of their children.

We find that 58.3% of mothers had one or more types of child support orders in place during their children’s OHC placement: 27.9% had a mother-to-government order, 38.6% had a father-to-government order, and 38.9% had a father-to-mother order. Most mothers experienced a decrease in total income during OHC relative to before OHC, including 67.6% of those with no child support order and 83.5% to 85.2% of those with an order. These decreases in income largely reflect decreases in child support receipt (experienced by 35.8%-44.8% of those with cost-recovery child support orders), increases in child support paid (experienced by 44.8%-75.2% of those with cost-recovery child support orders) and, to a lesser extent, decreases in earnings (experienced by 27.8%-28.8% of those with cost-recovery child support orders) and in benefit receipt (experienced by 15.9%-16.8% of those with cost-recovery child support orders). These results highlight the importance of additional research and policy initiatives focusing on alternative pathways (other than the direct economic impact of child support paid and received) through which cost-recovery orders may affect children’s foster care trajectories. As noted above, cost-recovery orders may influence families’ engagement with the child support and child welfare systems, in addition to increasing parents’ stress. The potential for cost-recovery orders to be counterproductive contributes to growing calls to phase out the practice.

We find mother- and father-to-government orders are associated with large decreases in the probability of reunification, whereas father-to-mother orders are associated with a relatively modest increase in the probability of reunification. We also find a consistent pattern such that income losses during OHC are associated with a decreased likelihood of reunification, whereas income gains are associated with an increased likelihood of reunification, in each period. However, we find relatively weak evidence that such changes explain the relation between mother-to-government orders and reunification, modest evidence that they partially explain the relation between father-to-government orders and reunification, and no evidence that they explain the relation between father-to-mother orders and reunification. We find that mother-to-government orders are associated with an increased likelihood of TPR at 48 and 60 months but no evidence of relations of father-to-government or father-to-mother orders with TPR, and no consistent evidence that changes in economic resources explain the relation between mother-to-government orders and TPR.

Categories

Tags