The Parental Restoration Act

The Parental Restoration Act is M.O.M.'s legislative framework — a proposed policy infrastructure designed to codify what the M.O.M. Ecosystem already does in practice: require that stabilization barriers be assessed and addressed before punitive enforcement escalates against a parent who lacks the infrastructure to comply.

This is not about eliminating accountability. It is about making accountability achievable.

The Problem the Act Addresses

Private family court operates on an accountability-first model. Courts issue orders. Compliance is expected immediately. When parents fail to comply — missing visitation exchanges, falling behind on child support, missing court dates — the system responds with punitive escalation: contempt findings, license suspensions, warrants, incarceration.

What the system rarely asks is: why did the parent fail to comply?

In the majority of cases involving low-to-moderate-income families, the answer is not willful refusal. It is infrastructure failure:

  • No transportation to the exchange location
  • No money for the support payment because there is no job
  • No job because a license was suspended for missed support
  • No housing stable enough to qualify for overnight visitation
  • No understanding of the procedural requirements to file a response

The system punishes the symptom and ignores the cause. The Parental Restoration Act proposes to change that.

The Public vs. Private Court Divide

Families in public child welfare cases — where DHS or CPS is involved — receive coordinated case management, transportation support, supervised visitation infrastructure, reunification planning, and appointed counsel. The system is structured around stabilization.

Families in private domestic-relations court receive none of this. They are expected to self-navigate a complex legal system while managing transportation collapse, housing instability, unemployment, and trauma — with no coordinated support and no infrastructure.

The legal classification of the case — not the family's need — determines who gets help. The Parental Restoration Act proposes to close that gap at the policy level.

Core Policy Proposals

1. Stabilization Assessment Before Enforcement Escalation

Before a court or OCSE office escalates to punitive enforcement — license suspension, contempt, warrant, incarceration — a standardized stabilization barrier assessment should be conducted to determine whether noncompliance results from willful refusal or structural destabilization. If structural barriers are identified, enforcement escalation should be temporarily deferred while a stabilization plan is activated.

2. Court-Ordered Diversion to Stabilization Services

Family courts should have explicit statutory authority to divert noncompliant parents into certified stabilization programs — such as the M.O.M. Ecosystem — as an alternative or supplement to punitive enforcement, with compliance reporting requirements and defined re-engagement triggers.

3. Stabilization Infrastructure Funding for Private Family Court Populations

Federal and state funding streams — including DOJ, DOT, OCSE 458(f), and workforce development funds — should be explicitly authorized for use in stabilization programs serving private domestic-relations court populations, not only public child welfare cases.

4. Transportation Access Protection

Driver's license suspension as a child support enforcement tool should be subject to a transportation impact assessment. Suspending the license of a parent who depends on that license for employment — and therefore for the ability to pay support — is a self-defeating enforcement mechanism that harms children by reducing the obligor's payment capacity.

5. Self-Represented Litigant Navigation Support

Courts should be required to provide or fund access to procedural navigation support for self-represented litigants in domestic-relations proceedings, including document organization assistance, filing deadline tracking, and plain-language procedural guidance.

The Accountability Argument

The Parental Restoration Act does not weaken accountability. It strengthens it — by creating the conditions under which compliance is actually achievable.

A parent who cannot get to the exchange location because they have no transportation is not a bad parent. They are a parent without a car. Give them a ride. The child sees their parent. The order is complied with. The system works.

A parent who cannot pay support because their license was suspended for not paying support is trapped in an enforcement loop that harms the child. Break the loop. Restore the license. Restore the job. Restore the payment. The system works.

Stability is not the enemy of accountability. It is the prerequisite.

Current Status

The Parental Restoration Act is currently in the advocacy and development phase. M.O.M. is building the evidence base, operational documentation, and legislative relationships necessary to advance this framework at the state level in Arkansas and, ultimately, as a model for federal policy.

If you are a legislator, policy advocate, researcher, or funder interested in this work, we want to hear from you.

Email: policy@mendingourmistakes.org

Learn More

Mending Our Mistakes, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. EIN: 39-4100221. Learn more at mendingourmistakes.org.