The Truth About "Deadbeat Dads"
There are deadbeat dads out there, and deadbeat moms, too. From a Fox story by Lisa Porteus:
The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.
That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.
Whatever sex you are, if you if you choose to have a child, and decide to duck supporting that child, I find you a loathsome person. And there are far too many of these loathsome people out there.
But, the reality is, there are also parents out there, especially in the current economy, who've lost their job, are unable to find another, and are simply unable to pay or unable to pay the pre-recession amount they were assigned. There are also parents out there who have found new jobs, but jobs that pay much less -- but are still expected to pay huge sums in child support, based on their previous income; sometimes because they didn't know to go get their child support order changed in court. These parents typically end up going further and further into debt, and sometimes being thrown in jail -- and in too many cases, not because they're bad people, but simply because they've fallen on hard times. These parents are sometimes women, but are usually men.
As Elaine Sorensen and Chava Zibman write at Urban Institute:
Nearly 11 million fathers in the United States do not live with their children. Two-thirds of these fathers do not pay formal child support.1 Society is rightly concerned about the widespread failure of absent fathers to contribute to their children's support. And a variety of recent policy initiatives are strengthening the enforcement tools necessary to ensure that "deadbeat dads" are identified and required to fulfill their child support responsibilities.But what exactly is a deadbeat dad? Most people would agree that he is someone who shirks his duty for no good reason. Our data show that 4.5 million nonresident fathers who do not pay child support have no apparent financial reason to avoid this responsibility. None of these fathers are poor. On the other hand, these data also show that 2.5 million nonresident fathers who do not pay child support are poor themselves.
Obviously, poverty is not an excuse for shirking parental responsibility. Society expects poor mothers to work and use their earnings to support their children. Certainly it expects poor fathers to do no less. But society devotes considerably more resources to helping poor mothers succeed in the labor market than it does to helping poor fathers do so. This emphasis on mothers is appropriate if they face more labor market barriers than do fathers. Its policy merits are more dubious if the fathers are equally ill-prepared to make it in the world of work.
This brief uses the 1997 National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) to examine the characteristics of poor nonresidentfathers who do not pay child support.2 We find that these fathers face similar labor market barriers to those faced by the poor mothers, but the fathers have far fewer opportunities to increase their chances of labor market success.
By the way, in any conversation about parents who don't pay, don't forget the victims of paternity fraud or state error -- who have their lives ruined when the state comes after them for child support, and never mind DNA evidence that the child isn't theirs. Unbelievable-sounding, I know, but it happens -- and happened to somebody I know, along with myriad strangers.
I got on this topic because of a show Lifetime is planning to air, called "Deadbeat Dads," continuing the myth that any guy who isn't paying his child support is a horrible person who can pay, but just doesn't. The show is a reality dealie, where a bounty hunter will go after these guys, but I guess, unless the title is a mistake, deadbeat moms just aren't part of the deal.
I'm guessing they'll pick the really big scumbags for the greatest dramatic effect, not the guys who've lost their jobs. But worst of all, the producers of this show, which is supposed to center the welfare of children, think nothing about turning kids into collateral damage. As Kevin O'Shea writes for the Detroit News:
The fact that the show is now on Lifetime, a network well known for its programming targeted at women, has raised some hackles. So has the potential effect of the show on the children involved. One critic says "The worst part about 'Deadbeat Dads' is the way it publicly humiliates children of divorce by depicting their fathers as not loving or caring for them. These children did not volunteer to be humiliated on national television."
The show was originally slated to appear on Fox, but men's groups, led by Fathers & Families, launched protests, and Fox dropped it. To voice your complaint to Lifetime in hopes they'll drop it as well, and for more information, click here.
I remember a weak comedian on TV who peaked with this line: "They says it's television for women... So why are women always being beaten up on that channel?"
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at April 30, 2009 2:53 AM
So wait you have a show that will publicly humiliate someone for misbehaving and it's bad?
Right so these will all be the type of guys that cause these dip shit laws to go into effect. I'm not seeing a problem here. Why not run a dead beat mom show on spike and see how far that gets you.As far as those children being humiliated that would be dad's behavior as they will be picking the stereotype deadbeat dads. If they pick the poor struggling father drowning in debt due to the economy the show will catastrophically back fire; or women are dumb as shit and we as a society are fucked any way as these are the idiots making children.
vlad at April 30, 2009 6:30 AM
Starts with Casey Anthony on the premier episode as you can't really get more deadbeat than that for moms.
vlad at April 30, 2009 6:41 AM
I've always called Lifetime the "Men suck" channel.
Steve Daniels at April 30, 2009 6:44 AM
I'm all for the deadbeat mom show. I've seen too many dads hit by the recent economy lose their houses (my own ex included) but still continue to do their best to support their kids and spend quality time with them. I've also witnessed the "moms" who quit their full time jobs just before or during a divorce to stay home and live off of these hard working guys and when times are tough, they still need their monthly check to "make ends meet" or get their nails done. Either way...
Kari at April 30, 2009 6:54 AM
As far as those children being humiliated that would be dad's behavior as they will be picking the stereotype deadbeat dads.
These dads are connected to children -- the subject matter of the show makes these kids' situations public.
Amy Alkon at April 30, 2009 7:01 AM
If mom is going on this show the situation was public long before Lifetime made it national. Mom has already broadcast everything to all the neighbors, friends, relatives, and anyone else who couldn't run away. Someone random person knowing or not knowing the case would make little difference.
You want to shame single mother due to the epidemic their irresponsible behavior is causing but shame the idiots that caused the idiot laws the rest of us are suffering under to pass is wrong?? I'm missing your logic, publicly shaming Luanda Washington or Billy Jean Jo Red(neck) which would humiliate their children is fine but when guys do it no.
vlad at April 30, 2009 7:08 AM
I want to shame single mothers BEFORE they have children. I want there to be a stigma against single motherhood.
Amy Alkon at April 30, 2009 7:42 AM
Having your dad on TV as a kid is far different than mom blabbing to her friend.
Amy Alkon at April 30, 2009 7:44 AM
The purpose of the show is to attack men in order to entertain women, not to increase child support compliance.
Statistically, WOMEN are clear and away the worst dead-beats when it comes to paying child support, notwithstanding that they are ordered to pay much less often than men. Women pay less of their ordered support than do men, and pay nothing at all more often than men. However, they are almost NEVER jailed for non-compliance.
Also, visitation allowed by mommy is a key factor: the vast majority of men who are allowed to participate in their children's lives pay the bulk of their child support.
But never mind, women's shit doesn't stink, after all. If they are a "heroic single mom," they positively fart gardenias. (I learned that from feminists on Lifetime!)
Jay R at April 30, 2009 7:53 AM
That's a matter of opinion. If everyone around you knows your dad is a dead beat pos that doesn't care how does some stranger knowing make any difference. Also anyone willing to make a spectacle of themselves on national TV isn't just "blabbing to her friends".
vlad at April 30, 2009 7:53 AM
Arguing that this type of show denigrates men as a whole is the same stupid argument that NOW uses against porn. If some tubby broad siting at home watching Lifetime living fat off her hubbies money watches this and hates men it because she already hated us. Just like rapists watching porn.
vlad at April 30, 2009 8:26 AM
Quoted from the linked article "Injustice by Default"
"Which helps explain why so many feminist groups and politicians have dug in their heels to block paternity reform bills. Considered in zero sum terms, any change that prevents some unjustly named fathers from supporting kids they didn't sire reduces the amount of money children and single mothers receive while increasing states' welfare payouts."
Do none of these feminists and politicians who have "dug in their heels" have husbands, brothers or sons who have been caught in this trap?
California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) refused repeated requests to comment for this article. "She says it's not her issue," a spokeswoman told me. "She's not interested to talk about it."
I may be looking through rose coloured glasses, but I thought justice was every legislator's issue.
I would love to see her husband or son named in one of these complaints and have the summons somehow not served on them. If they were hit with a default judgement and had to pay part of their paycheques for 18 years to a women they had never met, maybe it would wake her up.
Steamer at April 30, 2009 9:03 AM
"Which helps explain why so many feminist groups and politicians have dug in their heels to block paternity reform bills.
It's this sort of stuff that people who are truly in favor of equality, not special treatment under the guise of equal treatment, would stand up against.
Sheila Kuehl is a criminal, who thinks it's okay to steal from men to pay for children they did not father. Read the link above in the paternity fraud paragraph. Only some clever lawyering, volunteered by Kim Thigpen, got Tony Pierce out of paying for a child he did not have with a woman he NEVER slept with. DNA test proves you're not the father? Whatever. (Seriously, that's how it's seen in the courts -- unbelievable, except that it happens, ruining lives, including that of a guy I blogged about earlier who lost his credit, went to jail, and lost his actual family after he was deemed a father in a mistaken identity case.)
Amy Alkon at April 30, 2009 9:45 AM
"I thought justice was every legislator's issue."
No... "social justice" is, though. And that's not really "justice."
I'll not even go into my opinion of the kind of person who would broadcast her family's personal problems on this type of show.
ahw at April 30, 2009 10:12 AM
There are just things you keep quiet about, things you don't go on TV about. I have many things I could reveal that I don't, for example, the reality of who's really at risk for HIV, but I don't put that in my column. It would surely lead people who need to wear condoms to think they can go without them -- a very bad thing. I'm saying it here, albeit in a veiled way, but only because this is a different sort of audience than the very broad audience, including young teens, who read my column.
Amy Alkon at April 30, 2009 10:40 AM
Amy: "I want to shame single mothers BEFORE they have children. I want there to be a stigma against single motherhood."
The best way to do this is to take away the money. No money? No moral hazard.
We just need to change the rules of the game. Either no abortion or no child support. One or the other but not both.
Tyler at April 30, 2009 11:06 AM
"I would love to see her husband or son named in one of these complaints and have the summons somehow not served on them."
Well, under the laws of the State of California, that's real, real easy to do.
Jim at April 30, 2009 12:43 PM
"deadbeat dads" flows better and fits the narrative better...
Deadbeat Moms? It doesn't flow well, and, you know, Motherhood, apple pie, chevoray?
SwissArmyD at April 30, 2009 1:16 PM
"chevoray" Is that a type of goat cheese?
"Beat-dead Dad" is also pretty catchy, don't you think?
Jay R at April 30, 2009 2:16 PM
It really should be made easier for a parent to change child support. People don't do it because they have to go back to court, and that's even harder when you're making less money. How can you afford to hire an attorney or take time off from job hunting?
There should perhaps be court appointed arbitrators, or even clerks, who could quickly assess the income change and initiate a new agreement. It's not that hard to prove an income drop or job loss. If it was more expedient, parents wouldn't fall so far behind. Once they're behind, it becomes an endless struggle to catch-up, and many just stop trying altogether.
No doubt the legal lobby would be against any sane approach to this though. They make more money every time mom and dad have to go back to court.
lovelysoul at April 30, 2009 3:17 PM
I would love to see her husband or son named in one of these complaints and have the summons somehow not served on them. If they were hit with a default judgement and had to pay part of their paycheques for 18 years to a women they had never met, maybe it would wake her up.
Posted by: Steamer at April 30, 2009 9:03 AM
----
Unlikely, at least on the husband part as Shiela Kuehl (former child actress) is a lesbian. In the past apparently stated she has no problem with the old english law ideal of any child born into a marriage is considered a product of that marriage, DNA testing be damned. For Kuehl its all about social justice/identity politics.
Sio at May 1, 2009 1:19 AM
Thanks Amy.
I was fired from my last job after the "Fugitive Warrant Unit" went to my former employer's place of business to arrest me on a Civil Contempt Warrant.
I was found guilty of contempt in absentia for "refusing" to pay the court cost (as ordered) associated with my divorce, and sentenced to 60 days incarceration. Debtor's prison I suppose.
I couldn't pay court costs because I was indigent. I was indigent because my income was regularly seized for "child support."
I challenge anyone reading this to slice 70% of their net monthly income out of their monthly budget and to simultaneously continue to support their family.
I saw a recent (published) study that found only between 1/3 and 1/5 of a father's "child support payment" is actually spent on the children. The rest supports the custodial mother's lifestyle.
I couldn't pay my utility bills, my mortgages (my three homes were foreclosed), car payment, went bankrupt and lost my entire (nearly six-figure) life's savings.
I felt less than worthless when during a brutally cold Midwest winter day my daughter would look me square in the eyes and through the fog of her breath and while wearing a coat hat and gloves inside our "home" innocently ask, "why is it always cold over here daddy?"
Back then, I was fortunate enough to have my daughter exactly 50% of the time. Sadly, most of my parenting time was revoked after I moved out of state to secure a job one year post-termination.
I wanted to have my daughter's step mom (my wife)exercise my weekday parenting time so I could "visit" my daughter via webcam over the internet and continue doing her homework with her.
The court wouldn't allow just a "step-mom" whose a "nobody" to exercise my parenting time to establish interstate "visitation" over the internet.My daughter has fallen from her advanced level standing in school since then.
I was essentially punished for "willfully" moving away from my eight year old daughter. The three of us cried immensely.
Either I moved out of state to secure a job and continue paying my financially devastating "child support" obligation, or I face a felony "deadbeat" indictment for "refusing" to pay child support following the cessation of my unemployment compensation.
After "the system" forced me into poverty then caused me to be fired from my job (for the first time in my life) over a mere $663 in court costs, I was awarded unemployment benefits.
After my motion to reduce my child support was denied to account for my new and significantly lower monthly income of $1688 in unemployment compensation. The Hamilton County "Child Support" Enforcement Agency raised my order to over $1000/mo. Under Ohio law, they can seize up to 65% of a father's net monthly income for "child support."
I was left with a meager $848 a month to support a family of five (my two step sons included) while gasoline was over $4.00 per gallon.
Thankfully, we lived on a busy street and could hold weekly yard sales that we jokingly called "garbage sales" given we "garbage-picked" three to five times weekly to earn money for food and to keep the utilities on.
Today I drive over 1100 miles bi-weekly (assuming my vehicle is road worthy) to see my daughter for sometimes only 28 hours during my visitation.
I've lost much of the "visitation time" I was awarded due to travel time. That can be over 20 hours round trip, depending on traffic.
The court refused to allow my wife to pick my step daughter up in place of me on Friday nights, so that day was taken away.
I'm allowed to pick my daughter up every other Saturday morning. I must return her early Sunday morning to make the return trip (up to ten hours) home.
Sadly, I can no longer sustain my present "visitation schedule." I can't afford it as my child support has been raised yet again to over $1200 per month to satisfy an arrears that never existed.
After they seized nearly $4,000 in my present wife's income tax rebates and refunds to satisfy the non-existent aforementioned $2,700 arrears, it was erased.
However, they continue taking an additional $200 per month of my net pay and will do so until my outstanding arrears of $0 is paid in full.
That will continue until I can pay an attorney to fight the insanity now that I'm a "long distance deadbeat."
Admittedly, I still feel guilty for leaving the state to secure employment and feel I've abandoned my daughter.
At times, I must look away from her smiling face in that school picture of her hanging in my cubicle at work.Otherwise, the guilt associated with abandoning her would overwhelm me and and cause me to cry uncontrollably at work. Thank God I was raised to suppress my emotions and 'suck it up."
However, the alternative to me moving ten hours away from her,was an impending felony conviction as a "deadbeat dad" and most likely, a one year prison sentence for my first offense.
Next, I (and like many Ohio fathers) probably would have been re-indicted during my incarceration on a more serious felony charge carrying a 2-5 year prison sentence for "refusing" to pay my child support during my incarceration and while earning maybe .20 cents an hour in prison wages.
This is because the State of Ohio considers child support paying fathers who are incarcerated to be voluntarily under-employed and "refusing" to pay their child support.
I hope you know how much words fail to express my gratitude for your efforts on behalf of fathers Amy. Thanks again.
Tony
Tony Fantetti at May 1, 2009 2:45 AM
"It really should be made easier for a parent to change child support. People don't do it because they have to go back to court, and that's even harder when you're making less money. How can you afford to hire an attorney or take time off from job hunting?"
YES. The system as it is in many states benefits only the state really.
How many custodial parents who truly care about their children want to see those children's parent in poverty when they visit?
When the state recieves a CS payment and holds it for three weeks or a month, as is quite typical, does the state remit the interest in that amount to the custodial parent? This came up with me ex-wife and me, and she saw through this scam. She asked me to send her the money directly, and I had to trust her not to deny she had recieved it - she was trustworthy.
Jim at May 1, 2009 8:57 AM
Amy,
Thanks for speaking out on this issue. It's a topic I am intimately familiar with on both sides. I made mention of your position in my column on Houston Fatherhood at The Examiner. Thanks again.
Ron at May 6, 2009 6:18 AM
Leave a comment