Tom Pischke still doesn’t like paying child support. Sends letter to colleagues advocating against increasing support obligations, because it’s a “weapon to get back at your ex spouse”

@SoDakCampaigns

After sponsoring a measure to have women who have an abortion charged with murder earlier in the session, State Senator Tom Pischke is strangely pivoting from a controversial choice to protect children to not wanting to support them. Even after he found enough money to buy an apartment complex:

From: Tom Pischke <Tom.Pischke@sdlegislature.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:29 AM
To:   (all of them, edited for brevity – pp)
Subject: Please Vote NO on HB 1040

Representatives,

I’m asking you to vote NO on HB 1040.

If this bill were to pass, it would increase most child support obligations by 10%.   This increase hurts Non-Custodial Parents and their ability to be involved in their child(ren)’s lives as it puts an increased financial burden on them.

Please keep in mind, the Child Support Commission had multiple meetings this past summer and allow for public comments at each of them and allowed the public to email comments to them.  THERE WAS NOT ONE PUBLIC COMMENT ASKING FOR INCREASED OBLIGATIONS!!!!

The obligations for child support are already baked into the system and should not be increased.  As the parents make more money, the obligations amounts are already increase.  By passing HB 1040, your making the system even worse.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…. Think about what you’re doing and fully understand how the child support system works before voting YES.

Child support should be used to keep single parents off Government assistance, not a wealth redistribution system and certainly not as a weapon to get back at your ex spouse.

Please vote NO.

Senator Tom Pischke
SD Senate – District 25
Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee – Chair
Senate State Affairs Committee
Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Legislative Procedures Committee
Cell: 605-999-2948
Email 1: tom.pischke@sdlegislature.gov
Email 2: tompischke@hotmail.com

I hardly think the person who decided to become a property investor and bought an apartment complex is the one legislators should listen to regarding whether or not children of divorce need a long-overdue increase in what’s paid to support their care.

Or that Child support is somehow “a wealth redistribution system or a weapon to get back at your ex-spouse.”

12 thoughts on “Tom Pischke still doesn’t like paying child support. Sends letter to colleagues advocating against increasing support obligations, because it’s a “weapon to get back at your ex spouse””

  3. Read the letter. Tom Pischke didn’t oppose child support he opposed an automatic 10% increase no one asked for, on top of a system that already scales with income. Attacking him personally instead of addressing that concern is a dodge.

    1. Agreed we need more calm and thought here. Seems this bill would put an unneeded extra layer of interference on top of that which is traditionally handled by the courts and legal system. Maybe it should be opposed. Worthwhile view, problematic messenger.

  4. Child Protective Services is just a Child Trafficking Agency that steals our Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Taxes from us to steal children from their parents. Child Support is just another way to steal money from fathers, thus pushing them further away from the children, then C.P.S gains more control over our children. Tom Pischke is right, Child Support today has become a scam, a way for women to become welfare bums and for judges and attorneys to scam from the system, profiting from every family break up they participate in.

    1. I notice you provided zero evidence for any of these claims. Do you have any stats to back them, or are you just whining about your own situation?

    2. I assure you, as a single mom making more than my child’s father (who skips many weekends with our child) and is voluntarily paying for every medical bill and extracurricular activity expense for our child, am the furthest thing possible from a “welfare bum”.

  5. Pischke is a despicable human being that Dell Rapids should be embarrassed they continue to send to Pierre.

  6. I would love to hear what the Pischke children think about their father’s incessant complaining about how much they are costing him. Given how many years we’ve all been hearing this, they are surely old enough to be aware of it by now. If one of them is over 18 years old, can some reporter ask if they would care to comment? Isn’t that what reporters do?

  7. I was a recipient of child support for some years. Child support pays only about 20% of the true cost of raising a kid, so it is a tough challenge for the custodial parent. That said, many custodial parents ENJOY ACTUALLY HAVING PHYSICAL CUSTODY of the kids 70-80% of the time, so in their case at least, paying 70-80% of the costs is fair.

  8. If there wasn’t any public comments this summer to the Child Support Commission, then the Commission didn’t adequately do their job notifying the public of such meetings. I would have welcomed the opportunity to provide feedback. If Mr. Pischke thinks child support adequately covers children’s expenses then he’s grossly uneducated in this topic. Child support almost helps with basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter) all of which are expenses that have significantly increased over the past several years. Then if the children are involved in activities there’s additional expenses there too. Though I’m sure from his uneducated viewpoint child support covers all those costs. I would guess he’s too busy crying in Pierre about how he “doesn’t see his kids enough” to even truly understand who they are or what they are interested in.

Comments are closed.