For a vocal minority of divorced parents, no reduction in the amount they pay in child support will ever be reduction enough. Believing their ex-spouses are living high on the hog off child support checks, they begrudge every dollar that goes to feed, clothe and house their own offspring.

Now they've found equally vocal allies in state Reps. Ben Allen and Earl Ehrhart, who have sponsored a bill to reduce the amount of child support some non-custodial parents pay. Ehrhart claims that current support guidelines turn children into a "cash prize" of divorce -- one that gets exploited by the parent who retains custody (read: mom). He further claims that his bill (HB 672) will end this "child civil rights tragedy" -- presumably by lowering the dollar value of such children.

It's bad enough to equate child support with oppression. It's even worse to do so while trying to reduce the moderate levels of support non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are currently required to pay. The Allen/Ehrhart bill reduces child support by altering the formulas applied to health insurance, child-related tax credits and the custodial parent's income. Simply put, they're trying to score points by linking their bill to hot-button issues like tax rates and health care costs. But they could have picked the food and clothing allowances, and the effect of the legislation would be the same: The custodial parent is forced to provide more resources; the parent not living with the child is required to provide even less.

"They can sugarcoat it and put bows on it, but what these [non-custodial] parents are really saying is my needs are more important that my child's needs," says lobbyist Vicki McLennon. "Every year the same group comes down to the Capitol and agitates to get out of obligations to their children."

The bill even allows non-custodial parents who engage in serial parenting or refuse to work to opt out of supporting their children if such support lowers their income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level.

Amazingly, this rule only applies to the non-custodial parent, not to the parent with custody, and not to the children themselves. What part of children's "civil rights" are being served by picking them to be the ones to live in poverty if such a choice must be made? And why would members of the pro-family Republican Party author a bill that essentially rewards irresponsibility toward children?

There's a strong strain of victimization running through the non-custodial parents' arguments, and no small amount of anger directed at ex-wives and other women by the self-defined "father's rights" activists who are lobbying for the Allen/Ehrhart bill. But it's women who are most often faced with raising children alone, with little or no financial support from their kids' dads. Fathers are usually the ones to check out of parenting. Why would Allen and Erhardt look at this situation and decide that it's custodial parents -- and moms -- who are treating children like "cash" here?

Tina Trent spends more than the monthly mandated minimum to support two dogs and Mr. Sparkle, the cat.