Poor litigants, especially family law litigants, rarely get fair treatment from judges that are unable to comprehend the crippling effects of poverty. Lawmakers and judges consistently fail to consider the consequences their laws may have for the poor and destitute. There is a presumption that every man is capable of pulling himself up by his bootstraps, finding gainful employment and rising to the middle class. Poor people are largely invisible and their daily struggles are misunderstood by those who never worried about having enough money for bus fare or a bottle of aspirin. The shameful manner of Mr. Scott's death has its origin in the disdain our institutions have for the poor.
26
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be increasingly stacked against them?
As the book Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp...
As the book Men on Strike demonstrates, men aren’t dropping out because they are stuck in arrested development. They are instead acting rationally in response to the lack of incentives society offers them to be responsible fathers, husbands and providers. In addition, men are going on strike, either consciously or unconsciously, because they do not want to be injured by the myriad of laws, attitudes and hostility against them for the crime of happening to be male in the twenty-first century. Men are starting to fight back against the backlash. Men on Strike explains their battle cry.
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp...
14
This is more than a question of courts and jails. It seems that the US and western European concept of a "free country" entails widespread social acceptance and public financing of "irresponsible reproduction". Most traditional societies going back to indigenous tribal groups had some rules governing the access of young men to fertile females. Young men had to win the approval of the tribal chieftan, clan elders, or at least the girl's father. Usually some demonstration of skill or wisdom in skills like hunting, farming, or crafts. No such luck today. Now it's just reproduce on a whim with total disregard for the consequences to offspring or society.
13
@Tula: "Habitual sperm donors would rather spend money on a six pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes instead of investing in a couple of boxes of condoms."
Why are the men more to be blamed for not practicing birth control than the women? Likely your bias informs the rest of your comment as well.
Why are the men more to be blamed for not practicing birth control than the women? Likely your bias informs the rest of your comment as well.
13
Entire American judicial system is corrupted, if it wears any pants, it needs to be pulled naked, create embarrassment and should be summoned to answer in world's civilized human rights court. Unfortunately human rights people are also sleeping or corrupted. Welcome to the most corrupted court systems in the world.
4
Here is a tale of two very different resolution to child support situations. A friend who was the executor of the inheritance for a nephew who fathered a child he couldn't support told him the $78,000 remaining to his inheritance would go to support the child and if he needed money he could get a job and a room at the YMCA.
A relative divorced for bashing his wife in the face at 2;00 am and ordered to pay $950 a month for 3 children moved from the midwest to Florida where the state will not revoke a drivers license for non payment of support unless the support order was issued by a Florida court - which along with a lot of other similar non enforcement issues is probably why Florida attracts more than its share of such new residents.
A relative divorced for bashing his wife in the face at 2;00 am and ordered to pay $950 a month for 3 children moved from the midwest to Florida where the state will not revoke a drivers license for non payment of support unless the support order was issued by a Florida court - which along with a lot of other similar non enforcement issues is probably why Florida attracts more than its share of such new residents.
3
If a father is unemployed, he should still have to report for service somewhere every morning at 8 am.
He could volunteer at a school or help out at an animal shelter.
I could probably come up with a list of 20 places deadbeat, unemployed dads could do something constructive if you gave me an hour.
If they are employed, garnish their wages--even if it's only $50 a month.
No excuses.
Tell a hungry, crying child the excuses and see if that helps them stop crying.
And men who complain that their ex-wives are rich and don't need child support are missing the point. Your children want to be supported by you, not some unrelated stepfather. Love is action (child support), not emotion.
He could volunteer at a school or help out at an animal shelter.
I could probably come up with a list of 20 places deadbeat, unemployed dads could do something constructive if you gave me an hour.
If they are employed, garnish their wages--even if it's only $50 a month.
No excuses.
Tell a hungry, crying child the excuses and see if that helps them stop crying.
And men who complain that their ex-wives are rich and don't need child support are missing the point. Your children want to be supported by you, not some unrelated stepfather. Love is action (child support), not emotion.
10
so you make it so gender specific, women should never pay, never be fiscally responsible? PLEASE, you are making the case for men to be paid more. Fathers need to be involved in their children's lives and the courts need to support this. Courts need to be gender neutral and will only be when men are awarded custody as often as women (and studies show doing so will increase rates and lengths of married couples raising children) and women are required to pay child support as often and at the same amounts as men.
16
Frances Robles - very good writing, devastating, this is Charles Dickens, Bleak House... Murphy's Law, Insanity Inc. We deny equal opportunity after shattering for generations any hint of family history... Then we shoot him in the back... when he runs in fear of more...
We are living a nightmare. The New York Times can put me in tears...
I cannot explain this to our grandchildren. I am ashamed. Please cover more and more of this stuff. The nation must awaken to what we've become.
We are living a nightmare. The New York Times can put me in tears...
I cannot explain this to our grandchildren. I am ashamed. Please cover more and more of this stuff. The nation must awaken to what we've become.
8
Better young men just stay single, the risk is to great.
7
So the guy in the story refused to pay until the courts made him, and then he didn't bother doing it correctly -- through the support agency so there was a record (assuming he actually did it) -- and then, when he got busted, he "got mad" and let his life fall apart, even though he had children to provide for.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy why? Keeping in mind that there's a mom somewhere who's having to bust her hump like she's three people in order to make up for what this guy isn't doing?
I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy why? Keeping in mind that there's a mom somewhere who's having to bust her hump like she's three people in order to make up for what this guy isn't doing?
9
There is a solution coming but the government wont like it. Men are lashing back out with their mariagability. They no longer want relationships with women and are extra careful about fathering kids. Already on the internet they are being told that they have nor rights, society dont care. They are scorned everywhere they try to muster up support, and womens interest groups is using every shred of their power to shut men up. As these stories spread the news that there is an all out war on lower class men, we are going to see a serious decline in the next generation, and those brought up by single mothers are going to be defective and dysfunctional to society. Good luck America.
10
Not only that, the entire judicial system, law writers, lobbyists all are corrupted, they all should be dragged into world court of human rights, unfortunately there's not enough voice or human rights people are also part of corrupted American judicial system.
2
I have to agree with the handful of commenters who trace the origin of these problems back to irresponsible family-planning. Granted, the child support system itself is counterproductive because it may force men to make payments they cannot afford (while jail time or drivers license suspension looms over them as a threat), but what happened beforehand were babies being born into poverty and weak family structure. This is why the Affordable Care Act's goal to provide accessible contraception is unspeakably good for society. Nothing empowers a woman (and a man, it seems) than the ability to wait to have (or not have) children.
11
Charles Dickens, Bleak House...
Murphy's Law, Insanity Inc.
We deny equal opportunity after shattering for generations any hint of family history...
Then we shoot him in the back... when he runs in fear of more...
We are living a nightmare.
Murphy's Law, Insanity Inc.
We deny equal opportunity after shattering for generations any hint of family history...
Then we shoot him in the back... when he runs in fear of more...
We are living a nightmare.
3
Surely not all states are as bad as SC, but there the family court system is a travesty. After the family court forced me to give up my livelihood, they then jailed me repeatedly for non-payment of support. The law is supposed to provide allowances for failures to pay child support (not forgiving the amounts owed, just not jailing the debtor while unemployment explains the problem), but like so many of the reasonable provisions of the law, the courts ignore this one repeatedly.
on the bright side, however, being in jail was to me like a much needed vacation: three meals a day, clean surroundings and no telephone.
on the bright side, however, being in jail was to me like a much needed vacation: three meals a day, clean surroundings and no telephone.
4
I wonder if women would make different life choices if there were no child support laws and no government support whatsoever?
20
Have child support laws affected men's life choices at all?
5
No. Because a great percentage of women never receive child support payments. They continue to work, pay the bills and raise the child(ren) the best they can without help. However, free contraception, sex educatin and abortion on demand would go a long way to reducing children without fathers, As for women who choose to keep the children, either because they do not want to end a pregnancy or the children were born into a marriage to which the father no longer contributes, equal pay laws and affordable child care would go a long way to ease the burden.
7
This kind of news is making it quite big in the world of men. No doubt it is the main driver behind many men of all races and classes shunning marriage and women.
I recommend the book men on strike by Dr Helen Smith for a start.
I recommend the book men on strike by Dr Helen Smith for a start.
6
This sounds good. If men who fear supporting their own children remove themselves from the dating/fatherhood pool, this can only be helpful. And this article is a very good litmus, since it's the rare child support order that accounts for half the actual cost of raising the children. If a man's freaked out by this, he should not be having children.
6
No kidding, Away. Every time I see one of those MGTOW folks'comments I think, with Beatrice, "a dear happiness to women."
3
FYI all:-
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp...
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream - and Why It Matters
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood-ebook/dp...
I am a social worker who has tried to help a friend who lost his job, which he held for over 26 years, through no fault of his own. He has since experienced significant health problems and needs to have cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, and is currently on public assistance. In September 2013, he went to Queens Family Court seeking modification of his two child support orders. His child support payments were reduced to $100.00 per month, for each of his two children. He was also ordered to seek employment, which he did unsuccessfully. He then experienced deterioration of his physical health. In a subsequent hearing, he submitted proof that he has been receiving public assistance since July 2014 and reported about his health problems (sbmitting documentation at the mext scheduled hearing). The magistrate refused the documentation he submitted, only to state in her answer to his objection of the order that he failed to submit documentation that substantiated his medical condition. In addition to paying his child support order for his 19 y/o son and his 10 y/o daughter, he provided additional financial and in-kind support until his change of circumstances. Children need both of their parents, not just for fiancial support. I am in no way saying that fathers should not contribute financially to the wellbeing and care of their children. However, What do we, as a society, gain from criminalizing a good father because he is experiencing a rough time in his life?
11
We should bring back the "debtors prison" for creeps like this.....They should stay in there FOREVER until they learn respect for our laws !!
1
There should be a civil hearing if a parent is behind. The problem should be worked out logically so men don't run from the law or from their children's life out of fear. Why can't a simple hearing of facts with court officers who are allowed to recognize changes in circumstanes?
7
Or more to the point -- why are men going to jail as a result of civil proceedings based on debt collection?
9
I suspect many men are choosing to stay single due to the anti-male climate. Won't things be interesting in 10 or so years. Men should avoid parenthood. Go Men Going Their Own Way, MGTOW. "Where have all the good men gone?" women ask, it's not hard top work all this out ladies.
3
My ex husband flat out refuses to work. Refused to use his GI Bill to finish his college degree. He lied to me about his military record, let's talk a case of Stolen Valor. I would have never married some one with such a low rank that didn't even serve two years. Instead of being the Army Ranger for eight years he claimed and a Sgt. Rank. His whole family lied too.
I have a $120,000 judgement from Novemer in Georgia. However, he has skipped to Canada were he has married a drunken Desperate women he met on J-date. Her father is worth 30-40 million he thinks he can sponge of her and inherit 85 year old Daddy's Money.
The worst part is he has been an abuser to my children and insisted on seeing them. He has done them irreparable damage with the worse kind of damage on his visits. I had offered to drop child support if he would surrender rights to the children years ago. He refused. The abuse is worse than a mother can imagine that he did to my child. I have thousands up thousands of dollars in medical bills for my children.
My one child needs to be in a Residential therapy program for the abuse. My insurance won't pay for it. Every year I have hit the $6,000 catestropic limit on insurance, for my kids. He has never paid a dime. Nor has he paid a dime of the policy cost. I make just too much to qualify for anything.
So where am I at, where are my kids at. They are damaged by a monster. Who runs to Canada when he finds out the kid is finally going to tell the therapist.
I have a $120,000 judgement from Novemer in Georgia. However, he has skipped to Canada were he has married a drunken Desperate women he met on J-date. Her father is worth 30-40 million he thinks he can sponge of her and inherit 85 year old Daddy's Money.
The worst part is he has been an abuser to my children and insisted on seeing them. He has done them irreparable damage with the worse kind of damage on his visits. I had offered to drop child support if he would surrender rights to the children years ago. He refused. The abuse is worse than a mother can imagine that he did to my child. I have thousands up thousands of dollars in medical bills for my children.
My one child needs to be in a Residential therapy program for the abuse. My insurance won't pay for it. Every year I have hit the $6,000 catestropic limit on insurance, for my kids. He has never paid a dime. Nor has he paid a dime of the policy cost. I make just too much to qualify for anything.
So where am I at, where are my kids at. They are damaged by a monster. Who runs to Canada when he finds out the kid is finally going to tell the therapist.
Don't want to suggest something you may have already tried, but you might try the Canadian consulate. They have a very different concept of justice up there and you may find they would do something to enforce the support.
3
First, Family Courts need to align within 1 branch of the Court System. Either Circuit or Criminal court. By aligning within this court, it would provide Due Process and protection within the Constitution. As it stands now, the ABA and the Judicial groups can flaunt the laws thanks to no Due Process. This allows Judges and Attorneys the ability to "play" with each other without oversight. Judges can order ANY punishment or order he chooses thus making him the "king" of his/her court. Even with current oversight, Judges are unlikely to disbar a buddy of his he probably shoots golf with.
Secondly, with custody decisions going to women 89% of the time ( Census stats ), this process needs to stop and Shared Parenting 50-50 custody began by law with PROVEN prior abuse to withhold custody. Too many paternity fraud cases and False Allegation cases prevent men from getting custody. Attorneys even refer to making a false allegation the "nuclear" approach to ensure women are given custody. Currently ALL Laws are biased against men with NO domestic violence shelters for men in the U.S.
With Shared Parenting, neither parent pays child support to the other.
Secondly, with custody decisions going to women 89% of the time ( Census stats ), this process needs to stop and Shared Parenting 50-50 custody began by law with PROVEN prior abuse to withhold custody. Too many paternity fraud cases and False Allegation cases prevent men from getting custody. Attorneys even refer to making a false allegation the "nuclear" approach to ensure women are given custody. Currently ALL Laws are biased against men with NO domestic violence shelters for men in the U.S.
With Shared Parenting, neither parent pays child support to the other.
3
I suspect this is why so many men are refusing to co-habitat or marry, ie go MGTOW.
"(The majority of noncustodial parents nationwide are men.)"
Why is this statement a parenthetical? It's, quite literally, THE REASON why we're ok with such a blatantly unethical law.
To wit: if we were jailing swaths of women using CIVIL proceedings to prevent them from getting a lawyer, and then asking them to pay over 80% of their "imputed income" when they're out, then re-jailing them over and over again, the NYTimes might set its building on fire with anger and wrath. And Twitter would explode.
Why is this statement a parenthetical? It's, quite literally, THE REASON why we're ok with such a blatantly unethical law.
To wit: if we were jailing swaths of women using CIVIL proceedings to prevent them from getting a lawyer, and then asking them to pay over 80% of their "imputed income" when they're out, then re-jailing them over and over again, the NYTimes might set its building on fire with anger and wrath. And Twitter would explode.
14
I am a former child support enforcement prosecutor (IV-D Program) for the State of Indiana. I also have nearly 30 years experience in private practice representing mostly mothers in their efforts to collect court-ordered child support. These are my observations from my cases:
1. The majority of unemployed fathers do not make sufficient effort to find jobs. When they have money, they spend it on booze, drugs, cigarettes, girlfriends or any combination of the four.
2. Habitual sperm donors would rather spend money on a six pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes instead of investing in a couple of boxes of condoms. They go from relationship to relationship, often living off a series of not-too-bright girlfriends, making more babies along the way and supporting none of them.
3. Fathers who lose their jobs due to reduction in force or other similar reasons can get their child support modified. Under federal law, even working payors are entitled to have their child support obligation reviewed to see if a modification is warranted.
1. The majority of unemployed fathers do not make sufficient effort to find jobs. When they have money, they spend it on booze, drugs, cigarettes, girlfriends or any combination of the four.
2. Habitual sperm donors would rather spend money on a six pack of beer and a carton of cigarettes instead of investing in a couple of boxes of condoms. They go from relationship to relationship, often living off a series of not-too-bright girlfriends, making more babies along the way and supporting none of them.
3. Fathers who lose their jobs due to reduction in force or other similar reasons can get their child support modified. Under federal law, even working payors are entitled to have their child support obligation reviewed to see if a modification is warranted.
16
I know people are not going to like this. I do not believe that men or women should get child support. I am a woman and if I know a man doesn't want my child and I decide I do. I will take full responsiblity of raising my child. It is said that I know women who got pregnant , and knew the man they were with didn't want kids. When they kids came they wanted child support to support the kid that the man didn't want. The funny part is these women didn't believe the man had a choice in the abortion process and should have a choice in paying child support either. I just feel that if they want the women to have an abortion and she chooses not to, then the man should not be held accountable for paying child support. If the man agreed in the parenting of the child in the beginning , then he should pay child support. Just seems fair to me.
22
1 - Did the man have a choice about having sex? Did he have a choice about using a condom? How is this not enough?
2 - It's fine for you to take responsibility for your kids. If you are unable to do that, and go to the taxpayer for help, the taxpayer is going to look to your kids' other parent.
2 - It's fine for you to take responsibility for your kids. If you are unable to do that, and go to the taxpayer for help, the taxpayer is going to look to your kids' other parent.
3
She could of chosen not to have sex, she could have picked a better man.
Plus women have a better range of choice of conception.
Plus women have a better range of choice of conception.
6
Is that what the man "stuck with" providing for his kids ought to say, lone man? "She could of"? Are only women blessed with the ability to take responsibility for their actions?
2
My son is grown now. His kids grown. He could have had a great life, but he had instead, a girlfriend who ran off to Bakersfield with a boyfriend and "Her non-stop drug habit" that she taught to her daughter. The Drugs and the ex-girlfriend's College Education was funded by the Federal and California Government, who used the offices of the Bakersfield, California District Attorney to collect re-imbursement for Child Welfare payments the girlfriend used for her self-betterment.
My son has had his driver's license revoked at least 20 times in 18 years as a penalty for non-payment of some $60 thousand dollars to the Bakersfield, California District Attorney's collection agency. My son has a wife, and her 2 great kids. He and she seldom drink, and never do Drugs.
To those of you who feel, "It serves him right", I offer this response. He was age 17, and she was 21 when the child was conceived. He was 18 and she was 22 when she ran off with their baby and her druggie boyfriend. No DNA tests were ever done, and the District Attorney of Bakersfield, California doesn't require such proofs, they just collect.
District Attorneys are not above the law, but their behavior is criminal, and they leave victims in their wake.
My son has had his driver's license revoked at least 20 times in 18 years as a penalty for non-payment of some $60 thousand dollars to the Bakersfield, California District Attorney's collection agency. My son has a wife, and her 2 great kids. He and she seldom drink, and never do Drugs.
To those of you who feel, "It serves him right", I offer this response. He was age 17, and she was 21 when the child was conceived. He was 18 and she was 22 when she ran off with their baby and her druggie boyfriend. No DNA tests were ever done, and the District Attorney of Bakersfield, California doesn't require such proofs, they just collect.
District Attorneys are not above the law, but their behavior is criminal, and they leave victims in their wake.
16
My niece has a child who will be 11 years old tomorrow. The "baby daddy" has given the following child support over the past 11 years: a newborn outfit when the baby was born and two boxes of diapers. He is MIA. He has fathered five children, and he told my niece that she didn't need hime because she has "a rich aunt and uncle." (That would be my husband and me, by the way--and we are not rich.) So my niece, who works two jobs, and, admittedly made a mistake in getting pregnant with this guy, has had no help from this absent father. No one knows where he is. And yet, someone like Walter Scott, who at least made an effort, and Mr. Holmes, who is trying, gets thrown in jail? Is this the result of the difference between what is done in the north vs. the south?
5
As a single father I don't get child support, its not even offered. Even had to go to court over several years to put an end to me paying child support even though I have custody. The gender pay gap which has proven false comes up every election. Lets look at the family court gender gap for a change.
17
No one with custody ever has to pay child support. You were probably paying alimony.
people keep saying garnish their wages - but a majority of these men who get into this "cycle" are people who dont have great monentary means already. so if the guy is barely making ends meet how is "garnishment" any better? and what happens if hes not working ?
as the saying goes- you cant get blood from a stone
ths idea that you can solve this issue ( amongst the many many many issues ) by jailing and police enforce ment just unlines that we as a society are willing to seriously do the hard long work of remdying the issues that revolve around poverty and child care and other issues like mental illness or drug abuse
so long as the problem is dealt with in a punative way and we dont have to see it - it seems "out of sight "is truly out of mind
as the saying goes- you cant get blood from a stone
ths idea that you can solve this issue ( amongst the many many many issues ) by jailing and police enforce ment just unlines that we as a society are willing to seriously do the hard long work of remdying the issues that revolve around poverty and child care and other issues like mental illness or drug abuse
so long as the problem is dealt with in a punative way and we dont have to see it - it seems "out of sight "is truly out of mind
6
I thought debtors' prison was abolished many years ago.
Is this why our our prisons are overcrowded?
Is this why our our prisons are overcrowded?
5
One issue with child support is that it is effectively untaxed income to the custodial parent. It seems to me that it should be deductible by the parent paying the support, and taxable for the parent receiving it. And it wouldn't hurt for child support to be brought into line with the living allowance per child that the government uses to determine how much a family can afford to pay for higher education, at least at the lower levels.
10
It is not income to the custodial parent but child support which the non-custodial parent is obligated to pay just as he/she would be if the family unit were still intact. In effect it is treated as an intra-family expense which is neither income nor a deduction for one or the other parent. Keep the IRS out of it.
3
I have a rather Orwellian solution to the problem of unsupported children, or rather, a solution to the birth of those children likely to become same. Very simple!! Every vestige of liquid capable of being consumed by human beings should be fortified with a birth control substance(to be developed). Any person desiring to have a child would have to apply for the antidote to such birth control potion. In order to earn same, they would have to pass a psychological evaluation, a financial ability test, and successfully pass a 6 month(or whatever) parenting class. After the successful completion of the qualifying courses & tests, they would be granted the right to the antidote to the birth control chemical. Perhaps not a 100% solution , but it would certainly greatly decrease the number of unsupported children as well as the number of "deadbeat" dads in jail.
7
Congratulations: you have just invented class-based eugenics, and probably unintentional genocide, due to the ugly legacy of racism and its link to socioeconomic class in this country.
7
Lol really? That's the best you could come up with? Don't feel bad because I thought of requiring a license to bear children, similar to a Driver's License.
1
Somewhat similar to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" , only he meant it as a symptom of a Dystopia.
1
Unfortunately some states like NJ mesh child support and alimony. Thus people are going to jail because they can't meet the imputed income assessed to them for the purpose supporting a healthy, educated fellow adult, along with child support on top of that. The Court's have created a one stop lottery or gravy train for many lazy spouses at the Court house. What's worse is that this is all then blindly enforced by the State with draconian measures right out of Midnight Express. The imputation of income is an inexact science. Judges are not experts in this field. In fact the experts are not even experts in this field. It's very difficult for one to be intimately familiar with thousands of different jobs, professions and specialties within those professions or jobs then account for geographic variances, age differences, etc. As most parties can't afford an expert, all Judges have to use are generic outdated labor statistics which do not account for all the variances: age, background, etc that needs to be accounted for. To then use this in imputing income and allocate alimony and child support against, subject to jail, is crazy and incompatible with our country's values. At best, if the State is to permit the imputation of income for support, it should only be for purpose of accruing arrears and it should NOT be subject to the draconian enforcement mechanisms of the State. Only rationale support orders that are based on ACTUAL income should be subject to the State enforcement.
6
I agree a man or woman who has a job and is_ making_ efforts_ to_ pay_ child_support should not be put in jail. Some creative judges in my state have allowed weekend jail and weekday work.
That gets the attention of the working parent who is not making child support payments. But I don't think it work very well when the nonpaying parent comes before the same judge for the third, fourth, or fifth time. The key is to learn from your mistakes.
But not all these folks who are jailed to nonpayment of child support are working. An honest look at the 'skip child support, go to jail' issue would have statistics about the noncustodial parent who does not work, who lives with a new girl friend or new wife (or new boy friend or new husband), or who lives with parent(s) or friends, or who work for cash only. The work-for-cash-only market is pretty big, whether it's selling drugs or working day labor construction or landscaping.
That gets the attention of the working parent who is not making child support payments. But I don't think it work very well when the nonpaying parent comes before the same judge for the third, fourth, or fifth time. The key is to learn from your mistakes.
But not all these folks who are jailed to nonpayment of child support are working. An honest look at the 'skip child support, go to jail' issue would have statistics about the noncustodial parent who does not work, who lives with a new girl friend or new wife (or new boy friend or new husband), or who lives with parent(s) or friends, or who work for cash only. The work-for-cash-only market is pretty big, whether it's selling drugs or working day labor construction or landscaping.
7
The article and the many comments here point out many, many difficult social problems surround this question of support of children from separated parents. Regardless of individual and systemic culpability, the fact remains that there's a world of hurt that happens to kids in families affected by all of this. This article and the comments should be required reading for all high school students. Tommorow's fathers and mothers should know how serious a commitment parenting is and the consequences of not meeting one's obligations. More fathers should (be allowed to) step up and split custodial obligations which would reduce financial disparities and enforcement consequence related thereto.
6
I really think the District Attorney's whose job it is to collect are the problem.
District Attorneys revoke driver's licenses, and do worse things. They compel by the harshest methods of all. Unemployment and Imprisonment.
Robin Hood is a "folk-hero", that alone should tell what the problem is.
District Attorneys revoke driver's licenses, and do worse things. They compel by the harshest methods of all. Unemployment and Imprisonment.
Robin Hood is a "folk-hero", that alone should tell what the problem is.
GREAT ARTICLE and I'm going through this right now. I was an upper middle class citizen and then the financial collapse hit which greatly affected my business and income. Child support payments got racked up along with penalties / interest and then all of the harassment started. Loss of drivers license, loss of professional license, go to jail, etc, etc. Non stop constant harassment trying to make payments based on what I used to make and the family court system doesn't give a hoot what your current income is. I've made HUGE lifestyle changes living at the lowest level I've ever lived. (Live in the smallest place, drive a junky car with over 240,000 miles on it, no cable, etc, etc.) After paying child support and basic living expenses, there's nothing left over. What's not considered in all of this nonsense is that my ex makes over $100K a year, lives in the nicest area, my child goes to some of the best schools and they take exotic vacations all the time. As a result of the terrible system in place that has severely hindered my ability to earn an income, the relationship with my child has been SEVERELY DAMAGED. Trust me... this isn't just about lower income "deadbeats" getting thrown in jail on the taxpayers dime, it's also about lives being ruined due to the egregious laws and rewards for the "collectors" to collect.
16
You should go back to court and ask for alimony.
5
I believe you and many of the letters here support you. Obviously your wife doesn't need child support and in a country that evaluates a situation fairly she wouldn't get any.
Jailing working fathers who, for some reason can't meet their payment schedules is ridiculous. Payments have to be planned in line with available earnings. There are father's organizations who try to help men who are made prisoners of poverty through supplying child support beyond their means. In the US women try to "get" the father, beat him down and the courts comply. In Italy this wouldn't happen. Probably not in the rest of Europe either.
Jailing working fathers who, for some reason can't meet their payment schedules is ridiculous. Payments have to be planned in line with available earnings. There are father's organizations who try to help men who are made prisoners of poverty through supplying child support beyond their means. In the US women try to "get" the father, beat him down and the courts comply. In Italy this wouldn't happen. Probably not in the rest of Europe either.
2
1) I am old enough to remember the start of this nation's "Jail-Deadbeat-Dads" mania. At the time, fathers targeted (or at least profiled in the mass media) were not the working poor and indigent, but high-profile ex-spouses supposedly hiding assets in offshore bank accounts. Clearly, it has proven easier to go after the poor.
2) How does it help a poor man to pay child support if he is jailed and cannot work? Does his child support bill keep mounting while he is imprisoned and unable to work? After he is released, how does his prison record then help him to find a new job, to enable him to pay child support?
3) How does this madness keep public expenditures low, if the cost to taxpayers of imprisoning poor men exceeds by multiple times the maximum cost of child support they could possibly owe?
4) The number of insensitive and even cruel comments in this thread is stupefying. Instead of blaming the poor for being poor, and for having the same human emotions and urges as the middle and upper classes, we would do better to raise the minimum wage; provide family and housing allowances as European countries to; and most of all, provide the educational and job training opportunities that America's "local-taxes-pay-for-schools" and "tuition pays for for 'public' universities'" structures deny to anyone not already in the middle class (and even then).
2) How does it help a poor man to pay child support if he is jailed and cannot work? Does his child support bill keep mounting while he is imprisoned and unable to work? After he is released, how does his prison record then help him to find a new job, to enable him to pay child support?
3) How does this madness keep public expenditures low, if the cost to taxpayers of imprisoning poor men exceeds by multiple times the maximum cost of child support they could possibly owe?
4) The number of insensitive and even cruel comments in this thread is stupefying. Instead of blaming the poor for being poor, and for having the same human emotions and urges as the middle and upper classes, we would do better to raise the minimum wage; provide family and housing allowances as European countries to; and most of all, provide the educational and job training opportunities that America's "local-taxes-pay-for-schools" and "tuition pays for for 'public' universities'" structures deny to anyone not already in the middle class (and even then).
11
The best way to support children is to support children. The EIC, Medicaid, Chips, and school lunches are all steps in the right direction. Subsidizing absent fathers is not the way to go.
I remember too. What a waste of Legislation.
As a child my friend's Dad was a Mormon polygamist. 8 wives in 8 homes and a great number of children. A happy family, although a large one. The Law just couldn't let things be. They lay in wait, and put the scoundrel in Jail. They knew how to catch people, they knew how to hurt people. They haven't changed.
As a child my friend's Dad was a Mormon polygamist. 8 wives in 8 homes and a great number of children. A happy family, although a large one. The Law just couldn't let things be. They lay in wait, and put the scoundrel in Jail. They knew how to catch people, they knew how to hurt people. They haven't changed.
I keep reading that dad's "shouldn't give up! Keep fighting!"
I recommend giving up. Stop fighting. Abandon your children. Nothing you do will ever be good enough. You will never be able to pay enough, give their mom enough of a break, or spend enough time with the children. You will spend the rest of your their childhood "proving" you're good enough to be in their lives.
The best thing a father can do for their children is to abandon them altogether - that way child support is maximized and the children's needs are adequately met.
I recommend giving up. Stop fighting. Abandon your children. Nothing you do will ever be good enough. You will never be able to pay enough, give their mom enough of a break, or spend enough time with the children. You will spend the rest of your their childhood "proving" you're good enough to be in their lives.
The best thing a father can do for their children is to abandon them altogether - that way child support is maximized and the children's needs are adequately met.
4
Not every man has your experiences.
This article only portrays one of the many sides of child support. What about the females that are non-custodial parents owing the child support- able bodied and able to obtain a job, and found by the court to be willfully in contempt?? In RI, there are multiple outstanding body attachments for non-custodial mothers. The state doesn't care about the custodial dads especially when the dads work everyday and do not collect welfare from the state. When you do not collect state money for your child, you go to the back of the line with assistance in obtaining that outstanding child support, no matter the amount or how many years it has been outstanding.
4
Sounds like you married and changed your mind a bit too late. Get a Lawyer, they're like fleas. They will bite your ex and bleed you dry.
Not married (yet) and no kids, so I don't have my own horse in this race, but it seems few Americans grow up without being drawn, by some relationship or another, into the strange matrix that is child support enforcement. We are the children of divorced parents or divorced parents ourselves, we watch our siblings, friends or new partners who are working to pay for their children's needs (while maintaining their own lives) or struggling alone without support. What is appreciable is the frank rancor and often open hostility from both sides. How is it that after 45 years - almost two whole generations - we still have such abysmal divorce law in this country? One-half of American children live in single-parent households, 30-40% of our marriages end in divorce. Do the math: these people are not on the fringes of society - this is us. We keep trying to wrest the old model (dad pays, mom stays) onto a new way of living and our efforts have been unable to maintain security and fairness, let alone create justice. We need a new paradigm for negotiating the acts of becoming and/or being unmarried to our child's/children's other parent.
6
These "rancor" laws are promoted and encouraged by the ABA. They inherently make a good living from people scrapping over their own flesh and blood. With lobbying and paying legislators to keep the status quo, they ensure men are denigrated and women are promoted.
These types of heartless laws have come from the behemoth of the Feminist political and legal lobby machine, together with opportunist politicians reacting to the lobbying and a perceived voting block. Politicians care more about votes than the poor and so we end up with a viscous feed back system; lobbyist emboldened by their success and politicians by their votes.
The plight of disadvantaged men is off the political map, with complaints parried with hideous and shallow 'gotcha' ripostes. The state of family law is appalling in USA and much of the West; until politicians or the media have integrity to go against the narrative then it will simply get worse.
The plight of disadvantaged men is off the political map, with complaints parried with hideous and shallow 'gotcha' ripostes. The state of family law is appalling in USA and much of the West; until politicians or the media have integrity to go against the narrative then it will simply get worse.
9
“Though the threat of jail is considered an effective incentive for people who are able but unwilling to pay, many critics assert that punitive policies are trapping poor men in a cycle of debt, unemployment and imprisonment.”
While I applaud the Times for its ongoing reporting on the war on poor people currently being waged in our legal system, I’m sorry that, in their effort to make a point, the writers rather casually obscured a huge divide between non-paying parents with means and those without. People who are able but unwilling to pay [child support] are NOT deterred by the threat of jail because jail is not a realistic threat for them. There are any number of ways that a father (or mother) can successfully hide assets and income or pay expensive retainers for lawyers to otherwise endlessly, and legally, delay child support payments. If the system is rigged against those who cannot pay, it is equally rigged for those with privilege and resources.
While I applaud the Times for its ongoing reporting on the war on poor people currently being waged in our legal system, I’m sorry that, in their effort to make a point, the writers rather casually obscured a huge divide between non-paying parents with means and those without. People who are able but unwilling to pay [child support] are NOT deterred by the threat of jail because jail is not a realistic threat for them. There are any number of ways that a father (or mother) can successfully hide assets and income or pay expensive retainers for lawyers to otherwise endlessly, and legally, delay child support payments. If the system is rigged against those who cannot pay, it is equally rigged for those with privilege and resources.
5
Problem 1. Mr. Scott, working, arrested, loses job. Why? How about: Mr. Scott our records indicate that you are employed but missed child support payments. Contact us to arrange a hearing date. Warning if you fail to contact us, a warrant will be issued for your arrest and you may lose your job.
Problem 2. Custodial parent not working, receiving welfare. Non-custodial working. How about: Dear welfare parent, our records indicate that you are not working, if you don't become employed we will proceed with court actions to terminate your custodial arrangement with your baby's daddy (or mommy). Every parent must work to take care of their children, including you. The non-custodial parent is working so we believe they would be the better parent!
Problem 3. Dear collection agency, you have been authorized to collect payment as reimbursement for tax payer dollars used to assist individuals to raise their children. You must collect from both parents on a 50/50 basis period! If you give 500 per month to a single person, you must collect 250 from each. You may accrue the portion paid to the recipient until minor reaches adulthood, with a reason rate of interest on the outstanding balance of course.
Problem 2. Custodial parent not working, receiving welfare. Non-custodial working. How about: Dear welfare parent, our records indicate that you are not working, if you don't become employed we will proceed with court actions to terminate your custodial arrangement with your baby's daddy (or mommy). Every parent must work to take care of their children, including you. The non-custodial parent is working so we believe they would be the better parent!
Problem 3. Dear collection agency, you have been authorized to collect payment as reimbursement for tax payer dollars used to assist individuals to raise their children. You must collect from both parents on a 50/50 basis period! If you give 500 per month to a single person, you must collect 250 from each. You may accrue the portion paid to the recipient until minor reaches adulthood, with a reason rate of interest on the outstanding balance of course.
8
What if the non-custodial parent doesn't actually want the primary responsibility of caring for the children?
The United States has little regard for its poor. Jail is the only American solution.
Tied with jailing people behind in child support (which really helps a family stay together) is the cruelty inflicted on those who cannot pay minor judicial fines like parking or speeding tickets. Penalties and interest leave a person with a few dollars owing thousands.
The land of the free is the land of the oppressed. the greatest crime in America is to be poor.
Tied with jailing people behind in child support (which really helps a family stay together) is the cruelty inflicted on those who cannot pay minor judicial fines like parking or speeding tickets. Penalties and interest leave a person with a few dollars owing thousands.
The land of the free is the land of the oppressed. the greatest crime in America is to be poor.
13
Jail or revoking driver license doesn't make any sense at all. These people need to be kept working and their wages garnished, not put in circumstances where they cannot work to earn the money the child needs. Then in jail, the taxpayer is paying for the guy. That's just stupid.
I also believe that if they cannot support the first kid, they should be required to get a reversible vasectomy until they can afford to support their children....
I also believe that if they cannot support the first kid, they should be required to get a reversible vasectomy until they can afford to support their children....
19
Jail is big business in the U.S. Precisely why more people are incarcerated in the U.S. than any other country in the world.
8
There are a lot of reasons why so many people are in jail in the USA. For starters, the US holds 4.6% of the world's population, but consumes 80% of the world's narcotics. Do you think that could be a problem?
3
I'm presuming women who can't pay their child support should have their tubes tied. Would this also include custodial parents who are deemed to be not spending enough money on their children.
3
I can honestly say that it does not have to be a simple fact that the parents cannot support the children. I know that when a close friend of mine was overseas with the military for a couple years he was sending money to his fiance to pay the bills and take care of his children. Than when he came out of the military it came to light that she got on state aid and said that he was not supporting her or their children and that he was not in the picture. So while he was sending her over two thousand dollars a month the state was charging him 900 a month in child support. So by the time he got state side he was 21,600 dollars in debt for back child support. And because he thought they were going to get married he did not keep his receipts because as far as he knew he could trust her. While for most cases this is not how it happens child support cases or not black and white like most people seem to think.
12
The problem is the ridiculously unfair legislation that underpins these egregious court orders that warrants major reform. The typical, one-dimensional and shortsighted family law legislation, combined with far too much judicial freedom (under the guise of "best interests of the child", etc.), discretion and power is wreaking serious, destructive havoc on too many noncustodial parents and more importantly, too many of their children, who are the ultimate victims in all of this. The financial issues become too acrimonious between the entitled, "custodial" and the struggling, "noncustodial," parents, that the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child deeply suffers, often permanently. No amount of child support can ever repair that irreversible emotional and psychological damage that the children are forced to bear. Children don't care about the money; they care about being with both parents and loved by them, equally.
8
SPOT on about the damage it does to the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child. I was in a similar situation after my business tanked during the great financial collapse and was put through this nonsense. Big Government minions with no common sense basically ruined me --- and the relationship with my child. Meanwhile, ex-wife is taking exotic vacations, buying new cars, new homes, etc., etc.
5
An absolute travesty and it leads to tragedies. Why not keep them out of jail and garnish their wages to make up the debt? Another example of the idiocy and brutality of our violent criminal justice policies.
11
At York County Prison in York South Carolina, those who are incarcerated due to child support can be put on a work release program after passing a background check and a drug screen. If they already have a job, they can be put back on their job that day, or the following day. If they do not have a job, the work release coordinator will help them look and obtain a job outside the facility. Then the inmate gives their check to the work release coordinator who takes 55% for child support, a small percentage for the facility room and board and save the rest for the inmate. These inmates can pay down their child support, and pay the county for the incarceration and have a job and money saved when they are released. Although most inmates that obtain a job while incarcerated do not keep that job once released. It is a win/win situation for the inmate and the county. This needs to be researched more.
6
Yes, but how many people lose their jobs while they are incarcerated?
2
Sounds like legalized slavery. Why am I not surprised South Carolina does this?
3
Given that, at the income levels the original article is dealing with, much "child support" is actually paid from the defendant to the government as reimbursement for welfare, what you describe sounds a lot like a script for a Hollywood dystopia: "In theaters on Labor Day: WorkFarm. In the future, the government will gather up working-age adults and keep them in a prison farm, letting them out to toil from 8-6 and harvesting any surplus." Actually that leads to questions... (1) is this more futuristic or retro? and (2) what does it look like if privatized? Can I buy a big cotton farm in South Carolina, build some basic dormitories, then ask the government to send me some healthy adults to live in my dorms and pick cotton during the day because if they run away the government will hunt them down, shackle them, and return them to me? Since I want to make sure that the workers are young, strong, and fit, perhaps I can go to a government-run auction and bid on the defendants who seem best suited to the work on my farm?
2
"That’s your problem. You figure it out.”
That's exactly what the New Jersey Family Court judge said to my brother after he wanted his significant child support payments temporarily adjusted after he was unexpectedly laid off from his well paying finance job - until he could get a job that offered similar compensation. The judge was heartless and threatened him with jail. It was all too much for my brother to take. He went into an emotional tailspin and disappeared. Instead of temporarily reduced payments his family got nothing. The current system is broken. The judges are broken - and in many cases tenured.
That's exactly what the New Jersey Family Court judge said to my brother after he wanted his significant child support payments temporarily adjusted after he was unexpectedly laid off from his well paying finance job - until he could get a job that offered similar compensation. The judge was heartless and threatened him with jail. It was all too much for my brother to take. He went into an emotional tailspin and disappeared. Instead of temporarily reduced payments his family got nothing. The current system is broken. The judges are broken - and in many cases tenured.
23
Several years ago a non-profit did a study on child support in Washington DC. If I recall correctly, a whopping 80% of women who had court ordered child support received nothing. Only a small percentage of women with children sought court ordered child support. Although many men get caught in the cycle mentioned in the article, and many more men are not treated fairly in court, the fact remains that the vast majority of poor women get little or no support from the fathers of their children.
18
An American who is not getting child support picked the wrong person to sue. In New York and Wisconsin the formula is extremely simple: the plaintiff in possession of one child gets, tax-free, 17% of the defendant's pre-tax income. If we assume upper-income defendants and therefore a tax rate of about 50%, that means the first child support lawsuit yields about 34% of the spending power of the defendant. A plaintiff who can obtain custody of three children by three different defendants, assuming that all three have the same income, will have the same spending power as if he or she had gone into that career. (i.e., having sex with three dermatologists yields the same spending power as going to medical school and becoming a dermatologist)
"Only a small percentage of women with children sought court ordered child support"? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/ocse-fact-sheet says that the federal/state bureaucracy is involved in cases involving 17 million children. Those are cases for which a court order is already in place and where, generally, the defendant did not pay as ordered. So somebody is seeking this cash!
"Only a small percentage of women with children sought court ordered child support"? http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/ocse-fact-sheet says that the federal/state bureaucracy is involved in cases involving 17 million children. Those are cases for which a court order is already in place and where, generally, the defendant did not pay as ordered. So somebody is seeking this cash!
5
80%huh? Care to provide a link to this study?
3
Check your stats. The Census would prove you wrong. Over 80% of men ( yes I said men as opposed to women ) ordered to pay, do so regularly. Check stats on females ordered to pay. It's less than 60%. Yet female NCP's rarely see jail time. I also say "ordered to pay" as opposed to "owing" because nobody should be blackmailed to pay for their kids.
2
While I would never call Florida a progressive state, at least it does not have debtor prison. If you don't pay your child support, you lose your driver license, but at least you are not prevented from working and earning. You just need to learn the bus routes.
4
That is of course if your job does not require driving. I had a roommate at one point who ended up in prison after getting arrested while at work for UPS because his license was suspended for failure to pay child support. I don't know why he was delinquent on his child support, but I do know that the enforcement was a result of him getting in an argument with his child's mother after he cheated on her and got another woman pregnant. While his actions may have been deplorable, the whole system was thrown against him because he had a problem with fidelity.
Last time I saw him he was unemployed and on government assistance.
Last time I saw him he was unemployed and on government assistance.
5
“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
Judges have discretion and are supposed to be enlightened members of society, surely they understand the cycles they create. This is not to understate Mr Scott's duty, but simply to state that a Judge has the opportunity to take a bad situation and make it better, they shouldn't treat anyone without respect. While courts are not parents, they shouldn't make a bad situation worse.
Judges have discretion and are supposed to be enlightened members of society, surely they understand the cycles they create. This is not to understate Mr Scott's duty, but simply to state that a Judge has the opportunity to take a bad situation and make it better, they shouldn't treat anyone without respect. While courts are not parents, they shouldn't make a bad situation worse.
21
Judge Judy does that all the time.
4
I paid child support directly to my ex wife. After four years of modification litigation and her running up over $75,000 in attorneys fees, I was told to submit my child support payments through the support enforcement unit ("SEU") thru automatic withholding from my paycheck. When the SEU received the order, they told the local prosecutor that I was five years in arrears on my child support payments. I sent the prosecutor five years of cancelled checks made out to my ex wife for child support. It wasn't good enough. The SEU said that my ex wife had to execute an affidavit stating that she had received the payments. She refused. I was threatened with arrest. Her attorney could have contacted the SEU and vouched for the receipt of the child support. He refused. The SEU wouldn't work with me. I had to get a lawyer. He spent hours--hours--communicating with the SEU and keeping me from being arrested. Finally, SEU informed the prosecutor that I was in compliance and there was no arrearage. I am white and I know lawyers. If I were black or poor, I wouldn't be writing this missive. I'd be in jail.
39
Too many liberal government workers with no judgment making life miserable for the average citizen.
3
No, that was not the case. Sorry to dispel your grotesque stereotype.
2
It is absolutely disgusting that these women are financially incentivized to minimize their children's relationship with their father. Basically the less time the kids spend with dad, the bigger the check at the end of the month. My ex got greedy and decided to cut me off altogether. She wanted me to see my children once a month supervised for about 3 hours in order to maximize her "paycheck." Luckily I was able to show in court that she was abusing me, my kids, and the system so the judge awarded me 50% parenting time and zero child support.
To all the dads out there, don't give up. It can be very disheartening when you ex uses a biased system to force you into indentured servitude. Fight for your kids and fight for yourself. If she's a sick sociopath who thinks money is more important than her kids having a healthy relationship with their father then she is probably doing things that legally constitute child abuse. Pay attention and report her to the authorities. Then seek custody. It took me years but I was finally able to break the cycle of abuse and so can you.
To all the dads out there, don't give up. It can be very disheartening when you ex uses a biased system to force you into indentured servitude. Fight for your kids and fight for yourself. If she's a sick sociopath who thinks money is more important than her kids having a healthy relationship with their father then she is probably doing things that legally constitute child abuse. Pay attention and report her to the authorities. Then seek custody. It took me years but I was finally able to break the cycle of abuse and so can you.
13
Well said and well done. Your outcome is extremely impressive -- and very rare. Most noncustodial parents struggling to not skip a beat with not only their financial and other court-mandated obligations, but also with the extra parenting efforts required to maintain a nurturing, positive and constructive relationship with their children, typically do not have the resources available to wage this war against the system of biased, one-dimensional legislation and a powerful court system with too much judicial discretion supporting that legislation. All the cards are stacked against the noncustodial parent, which is typically the father. I can only imagine how much time, money and emotional turmoil you must have invested to get the court to award you your fair position. Congrats -- you're an inspiration for not giving up on pursuing real justice and working to ameliorate the colossal injustice and this serious social issue.
2
As a woman it is easy to put 100% of the blame for this issue on the man. For every deadbeat dad, there was a woman willing to be impregnated by an irresponsible, unemployable, or addicted male, often out of wedlock. This would include the 5% of women who feel somehow obligated to carry a preganancy resulting from rape. That's a legal obligation in some countries, (and could become so in US too.) Women who feel baby-making is so important that any serial inseminator is acceptable are part of the problem. If women could raise their standards, if women would demand responsible men as reproductive partners, maybe things could change. True that imprisoning men does absolutely nothing to help them pay their obligations, but it does somewhat interrupt their often impressive careers as professional inseminators. Maybe offer them release from jail plus cancellation of past debts if they are willing to get their "baby-maker" tied. Equal opportunties offered to women too, of course. Oh-oh, just stepped in it, bigtime.
21
Kalia, what you are correctly desribing, is known as "sin" in religious circles. Anyone who engages in unprotected sex (ignoring the sex out of wedlock issue) which leads to a baby are creating a situation in which pride, greed, and selfishness are allowed to take root. When two adults, with barely enough assets to make ONE household work, insist on stubbornly ignoring the responsiblities of being parents, making the relationship work and then each insisting on having their own, separate lives, there will never be enough money to make that work. It all comes to pride and selfishiness - "I desire sex", "I am not required to love and care for my lover/spouse" "I don't need to give up any of my desires so that my lover/spouse and kids have their needs met", "I am owed something and I am not going to meet you halfway." We, as a society, are in deep trouble that so many kids are born into this situation. The kids are not seeing what healthy relationships look like and are likely to be just like their parents. If we all would be willing to recognize that we have obligations and responsibilities that result from OUR own choices, we would be at least headed in the right direction.
5
No one is speaking for the children here. I am the adult child of a man who never gave my mother one cent of court ordered child support. My mother didn't take my father to court because at that time (1960s), children were made to take the stand and my mother felt it would be damaging to me (and she was right). The tradeoff was that I was deprived of time with my mother because she was too busy working to put food on the table and a roof over my head, in an area with a good school system, to be able to spend any time with me. I was a latchkey kid before the phrase was ever invented. Father's who don't pay child support are doing irrepairable psychological damage to their children -- all of their children. The children grow up believing that their father's don't care if they live or die, have food on the table or not, or have a safe place to sleep at night. I don't care what socio economic group you're in --- the collateral damage to the children (who are the real victims -- let's not lose sight of that fact), is the same. When I became an adult and my father became ill and needed my help, he received emotional support from me. I would not give him a dime then, nor, if he were still alive, would I give him a dime now. When my mother became elderly and needed my help, I gave her everything I could throughout the entire 6-years of her illness. There was nothing I didn't do or give. Actions have consequences.
26
So basically you are equating a check from your father as a way to feel connected to him? Personally I would have preferred TIME with my father more than money. In today's day and age, women are fully capable of taking care of children without support. Likewise for Fathers. They too can take of children without support or a woman.
Is it me, or is it starting to seem like the clock has been turned back 200 years? Where did all this paternalism come from? Why do we need to examine and uncover and fix the chronic problems of our black fellow citizens?
All of a sudden, we as a society are being asked to change the way we discipline, change the way we coddle, change the way we educate, change the way we care for, and change the way we house these people. If I were black, it would be downright insulting. As if people can't make a decision and live the consequences! As if a white policy maker or technocrat always needs to come swooping in to re-engineer a solution, because once again "black men" can't seem to function like anyone else! We're not on a plantation. Black men have the same brains and blood as white men do, and maybe not most but too many black men actually do raise families, excel in school, in business, etc for us to buy into this narrative that they're "broken."
I would be curious - why not let some regular, law abiding, tax paying, family supporting black men tell their story? Actually, the only black men I know fit this profile pretty well. None of them are super-men. I bet they did the same thing most white folk do to get ahead.
These articles that make it sound like we need special rules for certain people just seem really patronizing, and almost racist. But unintentionally so, like a "forward thinking" planter from the 18th century might have approached it.
All of a sudden, we as a society are being asked to change the way we discipline, change the way we coddle, change the way we educate, change the way we care for, and change the way we house these people. If I were black, it would be downright insulting. As if people can't make a decision and live the consequences! As if a white policy maker or technocrat always needs to come swooping in to re-engineer a solution, because once again "black men" can't seem to function like anyone else! We're not on a plantation. Black men have the same brains and blood as white men do, and maybe not most but too many black men actually do raise families, excel in school, in business, etc for us to buy into this narrative that they're "broken."
I would be curious - why not let some regular, law abiding, tax paying, family supporting black men tell their story? Actually, the only black men I know fit this profile pretty well. None of them are super-men. I bet they did the same thing most white folk do to get ahead.
These articles that make it sound like we need special rules for certain people just seem really patronizing, and almost racist. But unintentionally so, like a "forward thinking" planter from the 18th century might have approached it.
11
Bravo! The black family down the street from my home is headed by a law abiding, tax paying, family supporting black man. He was elected to the City Commission and served two or three terms. We live in a majority white town in the deep South and voting is at-large.
These articles ARE patronizing..........and it's progressives who are doing the patronizing.
These articles ARE patronizing..........and it's progressives who are doing the patronizing.
I don't think the article is focusing on "black men" as opposed to the whole Child Support corruption. Child support and imprisonment is racially blind.
I don't think this article in any way refers to only black males. The policies for child support are detrimental to all POOR men. They are often asked to pay more than they can, and then detrimental punishments are applied when they cannot pay. Very often, poor people of all colors make poor decisions, because they often don't have the education and skills that other people, also of all colors, have. Why? Because they don't have access to it, and they are raised by parents also with limited education and skills. The cycle repeats.
Poor men should have to pay child support like any father of means does. But he should have to pay what is reasonable as compared to what his salary is. And since it takes two to tango, the mother should also be required to kick in support when the father has the child. And both parents should work...this should be a given.
Poor men should have to pay child support like any father of means does. But he should have to pay what is reasonable as compared to what his salary is. And since it takes two to tango, the mother should also be required to kick in support when the father has the child. And both parents should work...this should be a given.
2
Very frustrating for all. Courts are not parents and no matter what Obama wants to 're-write' into the existing laws (another memorandum or executive order?) it will not matter.
The major problem here is that people have too many kids, at least the people that can least afford to pay for them. And don't start whining about the 1%, corporate America, minimum wage, OR those evil CEOs.
If you have more kids than you can afford, WITHOUT ONGOING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, than you have wrought the consequences. Those might be consequences you cannot handle - I have no doubt that one making minimum wage cannot afford 2 or more kids. That being the case, they cannot pay child support either (although many do lie about what they make, which astounds me as I thought the IRS knew; they don't 'cause those same people lie about what they make).
But please tell me, how is society and the court system responsible for you having too many kids? Don't tell me you couldn't afford birthcontrol. Even before the ACA, birth control was free to those in need. Also, a pack of condoms is REALLY cheap. You don't like to use them? Not my problem.
But current progressive thinking implies it is my problem I'm supposed to support more government, more courts, more 'matrix' forms to best ID what to do with you now. Nope. No sympathy for this guy, except that he was shot. And the officer responsible has been arrested and charged. Done.
The major problem here is that people have too many kids, at least the people that can least afford to pay for them. And don't start whining about the 1%, corporate America, minimum wage, OR those evil CEOs.
If you have more kids than you can afford, WITHOUT ONGOING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES, than you have wrought the consequences. Those might be consequences you cannot handle - I have no doubt that one making minimum wage cannot afford 2 or more kids. That being the case, they cannot pay child support either (although many do lie about what they make, which astounds me as I thought the IRS knew; they don't 'cause those same people lie about what they make).
But please tell me, how is society and the court system responsible for you having too many kids? Don't tell me you couldn't afford birthcontrol. Even before the ACA, birth control was free to those in need. Also, a pack of condoms is REALLY cheap. You don't like to use them? Not my problem.
But current progressive thinking implies it is my problem I'm supposed to support more government, more courts, more 'matrix' forms to best ID what to do with you now. Nope. No sympathy for this guy, except that he was shot. And the officer responsible has been arrested and charged. Done.
22
I notice Ms. No Sympathy and No Heart also expresses no sympathy for the children, who are going to suffer for decades.
6
There are plenty of married people who make way above minimum wage who go broke paying child support when the marriage breaks up. I'm by even a "liberal" but this has little to do with politics. Every group gets divorced in this country at a high rate.
3
Without government subsidies? There go all the tax subsidies for the rich!
4
There are real and serious problems on the parts of many parents as well as with the child support enforcement system.
As a volunteer guardian ad litem, I have seen how parents -- moms and dads -- refuse minimal support payments. Of course, these are parents who abused or neglected their children in the first place. Many are addicts and suffer from mental illness. Many are simply steeped in a culture of welfare and benefits. They expect everything to be provided to them, and the idea of paying child support -- or taking personal responsibility for much of anything -- is foreign. It's appalling to see the suffering on the part of the children, and the lack of proper financial support is sadly only a part of it.
In our home, my partner has custody of his nine-year-old daughter. Her mother recently upgraded to a Volvo and lives on waterfront property, but the Child Support Enforcement in Florida assesses she can pay child support only at a minimum wage rate. Even so, arrears continue to rack up; she owes over $8,500. CSE has been pretty soft on the mother. The office says they are "monitoring" the situation and will take "appropriate action." This has continued for over a year. I have seen both sides of how child support enforcement in Florida works in such "regular" family court situations. I wish it weren't true, but there is little doubt that, in these "regular" cases, both the courts and CSE are much harder on dads than on the relatively few moms who are owe support.
As a volunteer guardian ad litem, I have seen how parents -- moms and dads -- refuse minimal support payments. Of course, these are parents who abused or neglected their children in the first place. Many are addicts and suffer from mental illness. Many are simply steeped in a culture of welfare and benefits. They expect everything to be provided to them, and the idea of paying child support -- or taking personal responsibility for much of anything -- is foreign. It's appalling to see the suffering on the part of the children, and the lack of proper financial support is sadly only a part of it.
In our home, my partner has custody of his nine-year-old daughter. Her mother recently upgraded to a Volvo and lives on waterfront property, but the Child Support Enforcement in Florida assesses she can pay child support only at a minimum wage rate. Even so, arrears continue to rack up; she owes over $8,500. CSE has been pretty soft on the mother. The office says they are "monitoring" the situation and will take "appropriate action." This has continued for over a year. I have seen both sides of how child support enforcement in Florida works in such "regular" family court situations. I wish it weren't true, but there is little doubt that, in these "regular" cases, both the courts and CSE are much harder on dads than on the relatively few moms who are owe support.
18
My friend in Florida has concealed from her daughter for many years the fact that her ex-husband has paid no chlid support. She wanted her daughter to respect her father and to feel provided and cared for, so she paid for everything and never said a word to her. She said some words to me, wondering what it would take for the state to make him do right by her, but the kid never knew.
I thought the article excellent. A segue to centuries old debtor's prison would have been apropos.
4
The larger problem is the inverse correlation between income and birthrate. A solution might be to offer a financial reward for not having children.
30
Or, limit any child tax credits to two children.
6
How about "you neglect your kids and cannot afford them, the state takes them away." I know that sounds mean, but I will never support paying people to have OR not have kids. I think we are far too steeped these days in 'pay people and they'll do the right thing.'
Maybe we should pay kids to go to school; with a bonus for an A or B. But that would be unfair to the C student. Okay, let's just pay them to go to school, regardless of whether they learn to read and write. But since they weren't paid, they may believe it's not fair that they got through and didn't get accepted to college. Okay, let's set up acceptance tiers - we'll take you no matter what your grades if you came from a lousy family.
But wait, what is the definition of a lousy family? One that was poor, or one where the parents ignored you? Hmmm, now we may have to pay kids from wealthy homes with absent parents. Not fair to the poor, okay, we'll give you more money to go to school if you are poor, but everyone will get a 'little.' We'll need more tiers for college unless we just say 'first come, first serve.' Everyone gets into the college of their choice regardless of their grades or ability to pay.
Now, how much do we have to pay students to go to college? And if they drop out, how much should we pay them to toss hamburgers at the fast food joint? It wasn't fair that they dropped out; it was too hard and they couldn't read or write. Maybe everyone should get $80k/year and no one works.
Maybe we should pay kids to go to school; with a bonus for an A or B. But that would be unfair to the C student. Okay, let's just pay them to go to school, regardless of whether they learn to read and write. But since they weren't paid, they may believe it's not fair that they got through and didn't get accepted to college. Okay, let's set up acceptance tiers - we'll take you no matter what your grades if you came from a lousy family.
But wait, what is the definition of a lousy family? One that was poor, or one where the parents ignored you? Hmmm, now we may have to pay kids from wealthy homes with absent parents. Not fair to the poor, okay, we'll give you more money to go to school if you are poor, but everyone will get a 'little.' We'll need more tiers for college unless we just say 'first come, first serve.' Everyone gets into the college of their choice regardless of their grades or ability to pay.
Now, how much do we have to pay students to go to college? And if they drop out, how much should we pay them to toss hamburgers at the fast food joint? It wasn't fair that they dropped out; it was too hard and they couldn't read or write. Maybe everyone should get $80k/year and no one works.
There is a financial reward for not having children that you can't afford. It's called not digging yourself into a debt pit you can never climb out of, and that is just the selfish incentive. Then there is the altruistic incentive of not putting some innocent child through the torture of an existence where they are a blunt instrument mom and dad use to punish each other at best, and at worst, subject to a life of neglect and abuse that they will be doomed to repeat on their own family as that is the only model they will know.
1
See if they don't pay then I have to work to support their children. In what world is that right?
12
In the "progressive" workers’ paradise where personal responsibility is ridiculed and irresponsibility is rewarded.
3
I believe that some of the Scandinavian countries use a different model. Child support is imposed as a percent of income, and withheld from wages. All the money is pooled, and recipients receive according to need. This ensures that the children are taken care of even during periods when some supporting parents are unemployed.
21
But in America children belong to their parents. Therefore, if the parent(s) can't provide for them and there are no foster parents or institutions willing to take them in, and the parents are too proud to apply for help, the children can starve, not get medical care, etc. America's priorities are not its citizens. American priorities are making money, making money, and making money in that order.
7
So that rich men will be afraid to have children, and the poor can have as many as they want?
1
Yes but in a small country (population wise) with high income - that works. Too many variables here.
1
I haven't studied the issue in great depth, but I strongly suspect that this is partly about US-born black men, not blacks in general. I think the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow have an important role.
Parents do need to be responsible for the children they beget, but there are no easy answers. This article tells an important and essential part of a much larger story.
Parents do need to be responsible for the children they beget, but there are no easy answers. This article tells an important and essential part of a much larger story.
6
Rich R: Despite what liberal media and so-called "race leaders" might say, slavery and Jim Crow have nothing to do with the absenteeism of black American fathers. The fact that this was not a problem at all in the 1940s or 50s when black Americans were truly discriminated against and economically marginalized, provides ample evidence.
The problem is more likely rooted in the emptiness of contemporary black american culture, myriad social welfare programs that have reduced the urgency of working, and misguided leaders like Al Sharpton who preach division, entitlement, and lack of personal responsibility.
The problem is more likely rooted in the emptiness of contemporary black american culture, myriad social welfare programs that have reduced the urgency of working, and misguided leaders like Al Sharpton who preach division, entitlement, and lack of personal responsibility.
2
Seems like everyone wants to fix the symptoms but not the actual problem which is irresponsible baby creation without the necessary fundamentals to do so. This is not a racial issue but a poverty and education issue.
There are so many problems linked to over-populating, I live in CA where there simply may not be enough water to support a population that is ridiculous for the existing ecosystem.
I saw a bumper sticker recently, "Aren't 7 billion miracles enough?"
Anyone that has even two children in this day and age is clearly ignoring global warming, water use, traffic, pollution, any all of the other scientific markers. I know, I know, your bundle of kids are precious, I am sure they are, but it is, inarguably, the most irresponsible contribution you can make regardless of what economic strata you belong to.
There are so many problems linked to over-populating, I live in CA where there simply may not be enough water to support a population that is ridiculous for the existing ecosystem.
I saw a bumper sticker recently, "Aren't 7 billion miracles enough?"
Anyone that has even two children in this day and age is clearly ignoring global warming, water use, traffic, pollution, any all of the other scientific markers. I know, I know, your bundle of kids are precious, I am sure they are, but it is, inarguably, the most irresponsible contribution you can make regardless of what economic strata you belong to.
27
I agree with almost all your points except that 'education' rarely changes folk's behaviour, at least in the short to medium term. Education programs are also very expensive for the little they achieve. What really changes behaviour effectively and quickly is opportunity cost.
now if only your parents had been so forward thinking as you...
1
I recently called an employee into my office to give him a copy of a National Medical Support Notice. This portion of public law dates from 1974 (ERISA) and the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 and requires that the absent parent place his/her child on the company's medical insurance plan. The parent pays his/her portion of the insurance premium, the company pays its portion, and the State does not have to provide medical care. This is a good law.
He also has court-ordered child support deducted from his paycheck and sent to the court agencies where the mothers of his four children live. This is a good law.
This employee (a man) told me he doesn't take home enough of the money he earns to buy food and pay rent on an apartment. I know it's true. He lives with his parents. This is the choice left to him by the choices he made.
He was there when all four children were conceived.
He told me there are women who have children by several men and thus don't have to work, as they get child support from each man. He told me "they will tell you they are on the pill". I asked him about the man's responsibility. He was there when the children were conceived.
Actions have consequences.
He also has court-ordered child support deducted from his paycheck and sent to the court agencies where the mothers of his four children live. This is a good law.
This employee (a man) told me he doesn't take home enough of the money he earns to buy food and pay rent on an apartment. I know it's true. He lives with his parents. This is the choice left to him by the choices he made.
He was there when all four children were conceived.
He told me there are women who have children by several men and thus don't have to work, as they get child support from each man. He told me "they will tell you they are on the pill". I asked him about the man's responsibility. He was there when the children were conceived.
Actions have consequences.
30
Once again notice the common theme. Men are accountable women are not. I agree he is to blame. 4 children??? However it amazes me how you all can preach to men then ignore the ones actually bringing the children to term are allowed to make baby after baby a lot of the times by multiple men and NOTHING is said about that? Most non western nations have a policy. No marriage? No child support or welfare. Guess what? In most of these nations around 90% of children are born into stable 2 parent homes which study after study shows is the best for children and society. You ignore this is the norm world wide and it's a model That works. This is a good law.
4
Yes, Azalea, he was there when all four children were conceived, but so were the mothers. Don't they have to take any responsibility too?
Your employee didn't tell you this, but in my state (and, I suspect, most others) a mother who has three children with three different fathers will (assuming they all earn about the same) get twice as much child support as a mother of three children who are all from the same father. This is because, for child support purposes, they are considered to be three one-child families instead of one three-child family.
This also creates another generation of irresponsible mothers who don't work and sponge off their children's privately funded welfare system called "child support." The children get money. The mother doesn't work. Where does the mother get the money for food to feed herself?
Your employee didn't tell you this, but in my state (and, I suspect, most others) a mother who has three children with three different fathers will (assuming they all earn about the same) get twice as much child support as a mother of three children who are all from the same father. This is because, for child support purposes, they are considered to be three one-child families instead of one three-child family.
This also creates another generation of irresponsible mothers who don't work and sponge off their children's privately funded welfare system called "child support." The children get money. The mother doesn't work. Where does the mother get the money for food to feed herself?
2
I hope the former Ms. Scott is happy now. After ruining her former husband's life, after forcing him into the humiliation of trials, jail and joblessness and destroying his self-respect as a man, now her children are fatherless and without child support.
I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
17
not to be too cynical, but the former ms. scott is probably being contacted by lawyers even as we speak, who are promising her that she will reap some "justice" from the police department and that "his death will not be in vain." meaning, a nice financial windfall as compensation for pain and suffering.
3
Jersey locks u up every 2 weeks for none payment and charges you 200 every time they issue u a warrant to a motor vechile account every time they suspend your l's I owe motor vechile triple what I owe child support just to drive had to move a cross the world just to be able to get a job and not keep the cycle of jail every 2 wks yet mother hasn't worked a day since I met her pays no rent since she's low-income housing and the little child support decides to give her only pays for her cable so how is that system provide for my kids wen I still buy them what they need since there mother is always broke
8
Until men get an equal say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term, I don't think it's moral to shackle a man to a lifetime of fatherhood because of a momentary event.
If someone affirmatively fathers children in a marriage or committed relationship and the relationship breaks up, let the parties work out an agreement among themselves. (And women, if you don't think that is going to be feasible, why are you bearing the child of such an unreliable, untrustworhty guy?)
If a pregnancy results from consensual casual sex to which the woman agreed knowing neither party was using any or adequate (two methods is safest) birth control, why does she get the final say as to whether it's a $300 mistake (abortion) or an 18-year financial and lifelong emotional involvement? Woman put the men in a "heads I win, tails you lose," situation all the time and feel morally justified, even noble. But that's just wrong.
That's never made sense to me, and I say that as a woman who has spent 35 years ensuring that I don't get pregnant whether in a relationship or a fling. It's quite possible to avoid bearing a child if one is hellbent not to do so -- so why would any woman care so little about her offspring that she lets any old partner father them, whether he wants to be involved or not? If women were more discriminating about who sires their kids, a lot of these problems would evaporate.
If someone affirmatively fathers children in a marriage or committed relationship and the relationship breaks up, let the parties work out an agreement among themselves. (And women, if you don't think that is going to be feasible, why are you bearing the child of such an unreliable, untrustworhty guy?)
If a pregnancy results from consensual casual sex to which the woman agreed knowing neither party was using any or adequate (two methods is safest) birth control, why does she get the final say as to whether it's a $300 mistake (abortion) or an 18-year financial and lifelong emotional involvement? Woman put the men in a "heads I win, tails you lose," situation all the time and feel morally justified, even noble. But that's just wrong.
That's never made sense to me, and I say that as a woman who has spent 35 years ensuring that I don't get pregnant whether in a relationship or a fling. It's quite possible to avoid bearing a child if one is hellbent not to do so -- so why would any woman care so little about her offspring that she lets any old partner father them, whether he wants to be involved or not? If women were more discriminating about who sires their kids, a lot of these problems would evaporate.
32
You should stay home from work a few days and watch the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich shows. Then you'll understand a lot of the problems we face.
Men do have a choice - but due to the laws of biology, their choice must be exercised earlier, in this case - at the bedroom door. Choose to use a condom, as directed, every time, insist your partner also use birth control, and the likelihood you will ever wind up with a child support burden is less that 1%.
5
This is already happening. Have you looked at the birth rate child support enforcement was ramped up? There is a direct correlation between child support enforcement and births. Men are choosing not to have children because the risks to the downside are too great. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db162.htm.
The whole system is a mess. With each state able to impose its own rules, the only entity that benefits is the legal apparatus itself. This article illuminates the many punitive processes that hinder resolution of the problem they purport to solve - nonpayment of funds in support of children's welfare. The bias in this article is definitely aimed against the legal system (totally justified) and seeks to minimize the deliquent fathers' behaviors. In many, many instances, and in many states, however, the custodial parent, usually a woman, has absolutely no redress for non-payment, and jail is not necessarily imposed, even when justified, e.g., in the case of a father of means just not paying, for whatever the reason, or for no reason at all. I have personal knowledge of several situations where a working father appears to decide he's not going to pay the support, and never suffers by being arrested or even threatened with jail. And a judgment against the father doesn't do much for a single mother who needs to pay rent and buy food for her kids. We need better arbitration so that families do not suffer in the way that is so common now. Locking up someone, making it impossible for them to work is not the solution; certainly not for lower income folk. But in already overcrowded courts with often perceptible bias from judges (and even magistrates, who often don't even know the ins and outs of the laws they're supposed to rule on), no one wins. We need systemic change.
5
The NYT should be commended for writing this article. It would have been all too easy to simply write about the dramatic story of a white police officer murdering an unarmed black man, but the Times looked a little deeper. When reading about this story, my first thoughts were that the real story here was that Mr. Scott was killed because he owed child support. Thank you NYT for shining a light on this issue. Knowledge may be the impetus for change which is sorely needed.
10
No, he wasn't killed because he owed child support. He was killed because an out of control police officer shot him.
To be frank I think using Mr. Scott's death as an excuse to go after women to whom fathers owe child support for children they fathered or after the system that Exocet them to suppor those children is too much for words. There is no excuse for Mr. Scott's death, period. Child support is a separate issu.
To be frank I think using Mr. Scott's death as an excuse to go after women to whom fathers owe child support for children they fathered or after the system that Exocet them to suppor those children is too much for words. There is no excuse for Mr. Scott's death, period. Child support is a separate issu.
1
didn't we read that he was driving a mercedes? got mad at the world, stopped doing everything, got into alcohol abuse, ran away from a routine traffic stop because yes, the system that wasn't cutting him slack, but did manage to be driving a mercedes.
1
I'm starting to think the GOPer slogan should read "If you can't make them act on fear, humiliate them until they act on shame. One way or another we'll profit from it."
5
Life’s ups and downs are no match for the relentless child support collections unit and its debt accumulation machine. One layoff or pay cut can land a payer in insurmountable debt or jail.
8
As a magistrate hearing child support matters, I can assure you that in every instance, the court attempts to enter an order which is based on the non-custodial parent's (NCP's) actual income. An order based on "imputed income" uses the actual historical earnings (a pay check may have been submitted previously or the NCP testified previously to an hourly rate, for example) of the NCP. "Needs-based" orders of support are based on the child's share of the VERY basic household expenses (rent, food, utilities, transportation, clothing, laundry and child care). These types of orders are ONLY entered in the cases where NCP's fail to come to court after being personally served with the petition, or fail to return to court after appearing in court on a prior hearing date. And, if the NCP petitions the court to lower the amount, with adequate proofs, the order WILL be lowered. In my jurisdiction, the NCP is given EVERY opportunity, and court date after court date, to: search for work, file a petition to lower the order, and, in general, show the court that he or she is making DILIGENT efforts to secure employment. Despite the facts in this article, I can say with firsthand experience that a NCP has to work very VERY hard to arrive at the stage where they face incarceration for non-payment. Moreover, incarceration in my jurisdiction is to be used ONLY when it is clear that the NCP has willfully violated the order, that is, had the ability to pay but failed to do so.
9
"And, if the NCP petitions the court to lower the amount, with adequate proofs, the order WILL be lowered."
Utter nonsense. I would think getting unemployed and collecting unemployment would be sufficient proof of a change in one's income. Not to the court. Do you know what the lady who ruled against me actually said? "This doesn't prove you don't have a job you're not telling us about." Really. She said that.
Utter nonsense. I would think getting unemployed and collecting unemployment would be sufficient proof of a change in one's income. Not to the court. Do you know what the lady who ruled against me actually said? "This doesn't prove you don't have a job you're not telling us about." Really. She said that.
12
KB: It sounds as though you are a person of integrity, as were most of the divorce industry members whom we interviewed for realworlddivorce.com. However, you've described a system that works for low-income defendants only if you never make a mistake, e.g., regarding whether or not someone's search for work has been "diligent".
"Needs-based" child support? Again, that's subjective. We interviewed a California litigator involved in a case where a parent who won custody was seeking more cash from the parent who lost custody. Here's what happened in the courtroom: "the mother said 'Why should this four-year-old kid have to look at a picture of the Mona Lisa in a book when I can charter a Gulfstream and fly to Paris to show the child the real painting?' She ended up getting $19,000 per month."
Europeans manage to have functioning societies without every break-up (or one-night encounter) turning into litigation. Child support is based on their equivalent of actual W2 income and is limited so that it cannot be more lucrative than going to college and working. They won't pay judges, magistrates, lawyers, etc. to make customized determinations of how much cash can be extracted from a poverty-line defendant.
"Needs-based" child support? Again, that's subjective. We interviewed a California litigator involved in a case where a parent who won custody was seeking more cash from the parent who lost custody. Here's what happened in the courtroom: "the mother said 'Why should this four-year-old kid have to look at a picture of the Mona Lisa in a book when I can charter a Gulfstream and fly to Paris to show the child the real painting?' She ended up getting $19,000 per month."
Europeans manage to have functioning societies without every break-up (or one-night encounter) turning into litigation. Child support is based on their equivalent of actual W2 income and is limited so that it cannot be more lucrative than going to college and working. They won't pay judges, magistrates, lawyers, etc. to make customized determinations of how much cash can be extracted from a poverty-line defendant.
I bet she did and I'll bet she's heard plenty of men claim poverty and unemployment when it must wasn't so.
Of course, paying child support is the right thing to do. But this is really about acrimonious divorce, where one or both parties are in the divorce are vindictive and eager to inflict as much pain as possible on the other party. It becomes particularly challenging when you live in states like NJ, where child support and alimony amount to approximately 66% of the payor spouse's pre-tax income (in event you are unfortunate to have been married to a stay at home spouse). Contrary to what many here believe, it is near impossible to have NJ courts modify an alimony award even in light of decreased earnings due to very legitimate reasons e.g.failing health or loss of a job. In NJ children become emancipated when they are 23-years of age, meaning you must continue paying way beyond when they turn 18. Alimony, on the other hand, and prior to the new legislation passed last year, was often for life for those divorcing after at least 10 years of marriage. Alimony and child support regimes ought to change (they are antiquated and punitive), to ensure that the payor parent is able to meet her/his obligations towards his children without tying a millstone around her neck. And payee spouses must be encouraged to find jobs and contribute towards the upkeep of their children. After all, it takes two to tangle and both parents must step up to their responsibilities.
9
This article repeatedly resorts to euphemism by using the interchangeable terms parent/parents/people to refer to the ones unwilling or unable to pay child support and thus incurring the wrath of the law. The correct terms I'd wager, in at least 90% of the cases following divorce, would be father/fathers/men.
What are the statistics for fathers who receive primary custodial judgments during divorce proceedings in the US? How many women, as a result, pay child support to men?
What are the statistics for fathers who receive primary custodial judgments during divorce proceedings in the US? How many women, as a result, pay child support to men?
8
Dan: The statistics that you seek are in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (freely downloadable but a pain to decode). In the states where child support is most lucrative you'll find that roughly 97 percent of people receiving child support cash are women.
[What does "lucrative" mean? In Massachusetts, the top of the child support guidelines is $40,000 per year or $920,000 tax-free over a 23-year period. That's when the defendant earns $250,000 per year. Awards of $100,000 per year or more are typical when a higher-income defendant is sued, making the total profit potential over $2 million. Other states have unlimited amounts of child support available by formula (e.g., California, Wisconsin) while others have capped the profitability of children (e.g., Texas, Minnesota). Children who live a mile apart, but separated by a state line, may yield cash awards to their custodial parents that differ by millions of dollars. When children are not lucrative, shared custody and/or primary custody to the father tends to be more common.]
[What does "lucrative" mean? In Massachusetts, the top of the child support guidelines is $40,000 per year or $920,000 tax-free over a 23-year period. That's when the defendant earns $250,000 per year. Awards of $100,000 per year or more are typical when a higher-income defendant is sued, making the total profit potential over $2 million. Other states have unlimited amounts of child support available by formula (e.g., California, Wisconsin) while others have capped the profitability of children (e.g., Texas, Minnesota). Children who live a mile apart, but separated by a state line, may yield cash awards to their custodial parents that differ by millions of dollars. When children are not lucrative, shared custody and/or primary custody to the father tends to be more common.]
1
A Catch 22 scenario if ever there was one.
If we can make poverty into an inescapable trap, then fewer people will make the choice to be poor; or so the theory goes.
If we can make poverty into an inescapable trap, then fewer people will make the choice to be poor; or so the theory goes.
5
No it's really the fulfillment of a false idea which is the basis of the fantasy form of economy the GOP has been promoting for 35+ years as if the Founding Fathers invented it in concert with the Constitution in which one must have an underclass to have a working economy. Thus they have a purpose designed system in which most can never escape poverty thus perpetuating the system.
2
Bill, I don't think any little boy or girl ever dreams of growing up to be poor.
Similar jailing practices for non-payment of debts are being investigated by the Justice Department in Ferguson as evidence of racial discrimination. In North Charlestonl, there are racial aspects to the local practice, of course. But, first and foremost, jailing of so-called deadbeat dads in North Charleston is a poverty issue. I suspect the same is true in Ferguson. The solution to the problem lies more in revising the laws to fit the reality of poverty rather than weeding out all the racists. The Justice Department has chosen to play the role of civil rights champion in Ferguson when it could do a lot more good just helping out the poor.
6
Except that skin colour aka 'race' and poverty in the USA are inextricably linked. Have you never heard of slavery?
2
Chasing after poverty-line defendants for cash is not something that a private plaintiff would likely do, but it makes good sense for government employees in the child support enforcement agencies ($6 billion/year annual funding state and federal), court system, and prison system.
"Child Support and Young Children's Development" (Nepomnyaschy, et al, 2012; Social Science Review 86:1) is a study from Rutgers/Wisconsin and finds that court involvement and court-ordered child support, even when paid and even when the children are poor, is harmful to children. But for every child who is harmed there are usually at least four adults who are helped (plaintiff, judge, one or more lawyers, child support enforcement officials, etc.). So it really comes down to a political question of whether the rights of children should be more important than the rights of adults seeking to profit. So far the Europeans tend to choose children (child support there is limited to as little as $2,000 per year, even when a defendant is rich; it is difficult for an adult custody plaintiff to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle simply by collecting child support) while Americans tend to choose adults.
Different eras and societies, and people within those eras/societies, have different views towards the morality of profiting from children. In the 19th century there were at least some families who chose to send their children to work in the mills, for example, and that was okay at the time.
"Child Support and Young Children's Development" (Nepomnyaschy, et al, 2012; Social Science Review 86:1) is a study from Rutgers/Wisconsin and finds that court involvement and court-ordered child support, even when paid and even when the children are poor, is harmful to children. But for every child who is harmed there are usually at least four adults who are helped (plaintiff, judge, one or more lawyers, child support enforcement officials, etc.). So it really comes down to a political question of whether the rights of children should be more important than the rights of adults seeking to profit. So far the Europeans tend to choose children (child support there is limited to as little as $2,000 per year, even when a defendant is rich; it is difficult for an adult custody plaintiff to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle simply by collecting child support) while Americans tend to choose adults.
Different eras and societies, and people within those eras/societies, have different views towards the morality of profiting from children. In the 19th century there were at least some families who chose to send their children to work in the mills, for example, and that was okay at the time.
8
Some good points, and good research. This systemic problem
is not going away anytime soon, count on it. When you have
a status quo system, with the ability to issue warrants, it will
cause a cycle to occur. Warrant, equals arrest, plus bailing out.
Person is in a vehicle, impound car, equals bailing out car.
If person has a job, well the job could be gone also, which
in turn causes the person to be without the funds to pay
for anything. It is a cycle that causes the person being targeted
to fall into despair. I'm quite sure this was the case with Mr. Scott.
Because of fear, and a lack of knowing the system, other than
knowing the cycle he kept spinning thru, he just dodged it the best
he could. In a system like this tho, it never goes away, not never.
If the people within this jurisdiction had taken the time, to at lest
write a letter to come in, and make some kind of other
arrangements. I'm sure that Mr.Scott, by having new full time employment, would have seen a door to find his way thru
without fear. Falling into a reoccurring cycle that puts you at risk
of losing monies, jobs, and jail time, with all the expenses incurred
would be a daunting task and there would be a fear factor.
The system must have a face, and work with each individual
case by case. But, it seems that a faceless system has become
the norm. Everyone lost in this event, even a unborn child.
is not going away anytime soon, count on it. When you have
a status quo system, with the ability to issue warrants, it will
cause a cycle to occur. Warrant, equals arrest, plus bailing out.
Person is in a vehicle, impound car, equals bailing out car.
If person has a job, well the job could be gone also, which
in turn causes the person to be without the funds to pay
for anything. It is a cycle that causes the person being targeted
to fall into despair. I'm quite sure this was the case with Mr. Scott.
Because of fear, and a lack of knowing the system, other than
knowing the cycle he kept spinning thru, he just dodged it the best
he could. In a system like this tho, it never goes away, not never.
If the people within this jurisdiction had taken the time, to at lest
write a letter to come in, and make some kind of other
arrangements. I'm sure that Mr.Scott, by having new full time employment, would have seen a door to find his way thru
without fear. Falling into a reoccurring cycle that puts you at risk
of losing monies, jobs, and jail time, with all the expenses incurred
would be a daunting task and there would be a fear factor.
The system must have a face, and work with each individual
case by case. But, it seems that a faceless system has become
the norm. Everyone lost in this event, even a unborn child.
>>“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ "
>> “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem.
Instead of throwing every so called "deadbeat dad" in jail, it might work if the judges talked to each scofflaw individually and figured out their situation and try to work out a solution so that the person keeps his job and the ex-wife gets the child support. But I guess it is too much to ask of our justice system.
>> “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem.
Instead of throwing every so called "deadbeat dad" in jail, it might work if the judges talked to each scofflaw individually and figured out their situation and try to work out a solution so that the person keeps his job and the ex-wife gets the child support. But I guess it is too much to ask of our justice system.
19
What you refer to is required by South Carolina law. Why the law is being ignored is the real question here.
7
That is because it is not a "justice" system. It is a "penal" system.
1
I had no idea that the fathers have to pay off the welfare that the mother gets! He gets charged for her money from the government? Did I read that right? If that is so....I find that abhorrent and illogical and just plain wrong.
16
The point is that he fathered those children, not Jane and Joe Taxpayer, and they are his responsibility to provide for, not theirs.
Yes, the government fronts the money so the children don't go without, but you bet it then turns to Dad to make it up.
Yes, the government fronts the money so the children don't go without, but you bet it then turns to Dad to make it up.
I get the impression from the folks who think they fathers should be jailed that the only reason for it is that they do not live with the mother and children. Otherwise shouldn't we be putting still married or living with mom/children unemployed dads in jail too?
11
They are jailed because they fail to follow an order of the court multiple times to pay child support.
As a pro-choice individual, I can't help but feel that "pro-choice" should go both ways. Just as a mother in the U.S. has the right to not carry a fetus to term, a father should have the choice to not be a father, if he so desires. Do I think the father should be able to force an abortion? Absolutely not. However, neither should the mother be able to imbue her choice (i.e., whether to have the child or not) on him. If a father has no interest in children, the mother should have no right to force him into the modern day equivalent of indentured servitude because she chose to maintain the pregnancy. And make no mistake about it, paying between 25% and 50% of your income over a period of 18 years is indentured servitude. I would have no problem using the same time frame that a mother seeking to terminate a pregnancy must use, as both the mother and father would be on equal footing. If you want to fix the system, give the father the right to not have children as well.
16
If men don't want to be fathers, they should take responsibility for contraception rather than leaving it to women.
4
The typical dynamic between a male and female is that the male is most often the primary initiator of sexual intercourse. Many females are coerced or pressured into having sex before they are ready and are woefully ignorant about the facts of their own biology. The male feigns ignorance of condom use, because you know, it doesn't feel the same. When the female finds herself pregnant for this worthless boyfriend, suddenly he decides to skip out because now she's a drag and she looks desperately around for support, of which there increasingly is none. She is too young to have or afford an abortion and/or it is not available to her, and she feels used and betrayed and saddled with an unelieveable burden of pregancy, bodily changes, nursing, care, and support. Her friends and possibly even family abandon her. Meanwhile, children grow up fatherless. But sure, it's all just so unfair to these poor men.
2
How does a "pro-choice" individual hand over the rights? If a man doesn't want to become a father, there are two excellent ways to do so - abstain from sex, and use a condom (and insist your partner uses birth control as well).
Financial considerations may well be a part of the decision on whether or not to terminate. The male must exercise his "right to choose" at the bedroom door. Period.
Financial considerations may well be a part of the decision on whether or not to terminate. The male must exercise his "right to choose" at the bedroom door. Period.
2
Now why didn't this ex-wife not have to get a job herself? Lots of single moms are productive members of society and support their children, many times without the aid of child support. It isn't always easy, but life isn't easy for most of us anyway. So why was Mr. Smith punished so severely, when it was obvious that he at least made an effort given his educational and other constraints in his life.? And excuse me for saying this - and I am female myself - but why does the ex get the privilege of living the life of a parasite simply due to the fact that she could perform the biological function of bearing children. This poor man's death burns me up.
9
When I heard the first report that his warrant was for failure to pay child support I was devastated. Then I read that of his several children only one I believe was a minor, and 16 at that. You can work at a fast food restaurant at 16 in some states I'm pretty sure.
Chalk another win up for the radical feminists. What's the name of that book again? 'The End of Men'? Who knew it would be eight shots in the back at a time?
Chalk another win up for the radical feminists. What's the name of that book again? 'The End of Men'? Who knew it would be eight shots in the back at a time?
1
What would these men do if they had custody of the child? Do they realize they'd still have to find a way to provide food, clothes, and shelter? I grew up around men who took pride in making sacrifices to provide for their families. Times are tough and I can sympathize with those who don't have a lot. But, there has to be some incentive to get people to take care of their children.
11
Well that's just it, isn't it? they are unemployed fathers the only difference being they don't live with the kids.
You don't jail unemployed fathers living at home because they cannot afford to pay bills do you? Why would you do so with a father whom has split with the mother?
You don't jail unemployed fathers living at home because they cannot afford to pay bills do you? Why would you do so with a father whom has split with the mother?
4
Divorce is good for the economy. Two households means more TVs, appliances, furniture, fuel, packaging, food, you name it, sold. Multiple dwellings have to be heated and cooled, property taxes and insurance has to be paid.
Like the old joke says, two can live as cheaply as one, but only for half as long.
Like the old joke says, two can live as cheaply as one, but only for half as long.
1
No, you divorce unemployed fathers living at home.
Obviously, some people skip child support simply because the do not have adequate income. Many are unable to earn enough to even support themselves, despite willingness to work. Much of this is due to the destruction of the manufacturing sector, the well paid employment it once provided, and the two parent families it once supported. Of course there were other periods of widespread poverty and destitution in US history, namely the early 1930's to early 1940's. So how did people cope with the issue of child support back then? Simple, if they had not the income to raise children, or were disabled, many just didn't reproduce. If they did bear children they could not afford to raise, they gave them in adoption, often to better-off relatives. Both of these scenarios occured among my own relatives; they just lived with it. Good or bad, that was history. The idea that everyone is entitled to public funds to produce as many children as they are able to , or wish to, produce dates to the 1960's. A culture of entitlement tends to lessen a sense of responsibility.
8
End child support and the birth rate among the poor would decrease. Women are just as responsible as men in having children. While this story focuses on the men's responsibility to pay, there are plenty of women who see having a child as (1) guarantee of WIC benefits (2) likelihood of receiving child support payments and most importantly, (3) a ticket to not having to work since they can say they're pregnant/have an infant. I have personal friends who weren't very careful about taking their birth control, knowing if they got pregnant by a boyfriend things would probably work out just fine between child support and public benefits. Let women know that when they get pregnant they're on their own and they'll be much more attuned to when the birth control needs to be refilled. And yes, part of my stance is seeing my husband pay $350/mo in child support while his ex has not held a job in 10 years, since she got pregnant. He pays, covers her medical insurance, and yet there is no burden placed on the ex to actually get a job and likewise contribute to the upbringing of the child.
19
While women and men are equally responsible for getting pregnant, women are solely responsible for that pregnancy resulting in a child.
1
And I come from the other side of the argument. My daughter's father managed to claim he had no money to support her as a child. The court's always backed him in spite of owning property and marriage to a wealthy foreign national. Eventually the court calculated $200 per month which he never paid. The only time he paid something towards her support was when he wanted to return to the US and knew he could be stopped at customs for back payments. Meanwhile I worked at whatever jobs I could find to support us. The problem is deeper. We as a nation have to stop thinking of women who have a child are the only parent in the situation. Although I feel for the truly poor man who is trying to support his family, there are just as many in all levels of income who are shirking their responsibilities because they are no longer "involved"'with the mother of their children.
14
The NYT article fails to make clear the US federal statutory law on this issue. In turn, this omission has led to much evident confusion in these comments about the law here when the obligatee's child resides in another state.
The US federal law is clear. 18 U.S. Code § 228 - 'Failure to pay legal child support obligations' criminalises failure to pay child support, with imprisonment of up to six months or up to two years, depending upon the circumstances [1].
For a wilful first offence and more than $5,000 owed, or any amount owed for more than a year, the maximum sentence is six months. For a subsequent offence, or more than $10,000 owed, or owed for more than two years – then it's up to two years in prison.
1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/228
The US federal law is clear. 18 U.S. Code § 228 - 'Failure to pay legal child support obligations' criminalises failure to pay child support, with imprisonment of up to six months or up to two years, depending upon the circumstances [1].
For a wilful first offence and more than $5,000 owed, or any amount owed for more than a year, the maximum sentence is six months. For a subsequent offence, or more than $10,000 owed, or owed for more than two years – then it's up to two years in prison.
1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/228
9
Kids should be learning this in high school (or even earlier) as part of sex education.
8
Another reason to just stay away from marriage all together. It simply isn't worth the risks. It definitely isn't worth the risks in the US with Alimony, and its not worth the risk in the UK with child support payments.
6
In the U.S., any man who fathers a child, regardless of whether or not he marries the woman, must pay child support. Avoiding marriage only protects you from alimony. Even so, economically, it's not a good decision to avoid marriage, as multiple replicated studies show clearly that married people enjoy much better incomes, not to mention physical health.
4
Yea - as long as you stay married. Not a sure thing by a long shot!
Liam: Alimony is a state-by-state thing in the U.S. In many states, either by statute or by custom, it is limited to a percentage of the length of the marriage. Indiana simply doesn't offer alimony in most circumstances (a lower-earning spouse, however, will get a larger share of marital savings). Florida, on the other hand, favors "permanent" alimony. For most plaintiffs in most states child support is actually the more valuable claim.
For forty years the US has given women custody & support in raising children. The result, more children born to unmarried mothers and more children raised in a cycle of an non-working mother, thus children fall outside a work ethic. It is time to give men a chance. Currently, daddies pay for moms not to work and live a better life than children's fathers. When fathers are given custody (very very rare) the women do NOT face the same consequences for not paying--not nearly so likely to face jail time or lose a license. It is time for a work ethic to count in all family court decisions. Fathers deserve a minimum of 50% time with their children. Women need to show they work the same hours as fathers or lose custody--plain and simple. Women who do not work or who rely on social services not used by fathers paying child support (Section 8, food stamps, etc) need to lose custody and their unearned income of child support. Child support needs to be treated as unearned income and taxes paid by the recipient. Fathers (overwhelmingly those who pay) deserve tax deductions. If whites received support at the rates women do and blacks and those of color were paying and jailed at the rates men are, the Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights would be involved. But because this is a gender issue and no one cares about the children (who do better with more time with dad) and the fathers, we continue to see women benefit to the detriment of children and dads.
10
I don't know if you know this, but children under the age of 10 must be supervised 24 hours a day. Additionally, children under the age of 2 must be breast-fed--an activity that obviously must be performed by women. Mothers are largely given custody because it's the most rational choice and what is best for the child. Being fed formula in a mass day-care setting is hardly to the benefit of children. Mothers are working; they're just not working at a job that garners social respect.
3
as a mother of twins, I know that mothers AND fathers can care for children at this age. I also know my husband's ex does not supervise the children that spend 8 hours a day in school or traveling to/from, and that she refuses to work, lives in Section 8, gets $3K unearned and untaxed each month, and kidnapped the kids to Czech for 6 months and NEVER had to pay for the costs (as the law says) why, because she is female and white. Don't tell me about mothers earning the child support, they earn a paycheck, period and that only by working.
Oh please, Daniela. Do you really believe all the lean-in propaganda?
Taking care of a child is work and it takes time and effort. Your idea that raising your child demonstrates the lack of a work ethic suggests that you don't have any firsthand experience of children.
Taking care of a child is work and it takes time and effort. Your idea that raising your child demonstrates the lack of a work ethic suggests that you don't have any firsthand experience of children.
1
If the absentee father was given more share of his children's time, and their school activities, and church activities, and community athletic programs, they would become incentivized to seek employment, and behave more responsibly otherwise. It's a terrible moral crime to ostracize a parent; anyone who is middle-aged likely knows several men who've hurt themselves from lowered self-esteem, and being pigeon-holed by society's liberal organs. What percent of "temporary restraining orders" are not only semi-permanent, but an egregious imposition of "verdict first, trial afterward" for behavior that is a priori "threatening," rather than a demonstrable fact?
7
This is just another example of how the Court System/Criminal Justice System is crushing low income people. $150 traffic tickets that people cannot afford, eventually they get arrested, because of that they lose their job and this all brings them into criminal court for non-payment and more fines to repeat the cycle.
This doesn't excuse not taking care of your children, but maybe the blog alongside this article has a point and there are other currencies besides money. Things like time or helping out in other ways.
The governmental assault on the low wage earner needs to end.
This doesn't excuse not taking care of your children, but maybe the blog alongside this article has a point and there are other currencies besides money. Things like time or helping out in other ways.
The governmental assault on the low wage earner needs to end.
7
So getting very sick or injured could very well mean a trip to jail as all bets are off with this justice system as it stands. The hospital bills themselves will put you over the edge. Your beat one way or the other!
4
Thank you NY Times who bringing to our attention the perverse system that jails poor men for not paying child support and making them loose their job. Yes, let us jail poor men for not making child payments, so they can become poorer, so we can jail them again seems to be the reasoning behind all this.
It seems in America these days, it really is a crime to be poor.
It seems in America these days, it really is a crime to be poor.
7
It should be a crime to father children you do not intend to help care for, just as it should be a crime to become a mother to children you cannot afford to care for by yourself unaided by the father outside of marriage.
2
No, there are more crimes you forgot to list. Being middle aged, not being able to find a job because of being middle aged, not being born rich, majoring in the wrong field that was right 20 years ago, not being a graduate of an Ivy League university, having children and then having bad luck, being African American while living in America, being middle class and needing to receive expensive medical care due to illness or accident. But the biggest crime of all in America is to expect that the government you support with your taxes, and this means our elected officials, will do something constructive rather than obstructive or in deference to big business.
1
Lock up the police and everyone in the justice system. It's not like we don't know who they are. It would feel good.
4
The 1960's paradigm of casual relationships and marriages has had disastrous effects in the black community. Still, as Ayn Rand predicted, "progressives" will simply suggest more untested initiatives, and conditions will continue to deteriorate. Why don't we find some way of rehabilitating this corrosive culture by reinforcing some form of traditional marriage? It works. No chance of this happening. Don't expect things to get any better soon, at least not for the next century or so.
9
@Tony Pastor: I wonder if Ayn Rand predicted she'd be living on Medicare and Social Security in her old age. Hmmm. What do you think?
9
Umm... this is no longer just a problem for black people in America. It has long ago spread to other races of men including *GASP* WHITE MEN. But, of course your going to display a superiority complex while simultaneously behaving obtuse. Typical.
4
What does "traditional" marriage have to do with this story/issue? I'm the case of Mr. Scott he was married to the mother of the two children that he was trying to pay child support for. Are you wanting to do away with divorce?
It appears that a better course of action would be for a) improved sex ed and b) policies that do not disproportionately penalize people for being poor and are based on actual disposable (or better discretionary) income for payment.
The existing policies with their draconian punishments only set up already disadvantaged individuals to fail. It makes no sense that the penalty for not making enough money to pay a sum is to lock people up and/or remove licences that would guarantee that they will not be able to pay it going forward. These do not help the parents, the children, or civil society. At best it allows some to feel like they are getting revenge or punishing people that they don't agree with. That doesn't teach responsibility or put food on the table.
It appears that a better course of action would be for a) improved sex ed and b) policies that do not disproportionately penalize people for being poor and are based on actual disposable (or better discretionary) income for payment.
The existing policies with their draconian punishments only set up already disadvantaged individuals to fail. It makes no sense that the penalty for not making enough money to pay a sum is to lock people up and/or remove licences that would guarantee that they will not be able to pay it going forward. These do not help the parents, the children, or civil society. At best it allows some to feel like they are getting revenge or punishing people that they don't agree with. That doesn't teach responsibility or put food on the table.
4
Here are a few realities about child support that few people understand:
1. Child support has no quid pro quo relation to parenting time. An ex-wife can ignore a parenting time court-order, refuse to allow her ex-husband to see his children and still continue to receive full child-support from her ex-husband's garnished wages.
2. Child support income for the mother is tax-free. The taxes are paid by the father.
3. The mother does not have to account for the child support money. She can spend it however she pleases.
4. The guidelines for child support amounts have no firm well thought out modern foundations.
When I first read that Walter Scott was behind in his child support payments I immediately understood how this quiet man came to be shot by the police. Killing a black "dead-beat" father is almost too politically easy. I'm surprised the police officer took the bait. Probably because it was his first kill. Thousands of men, every day, enter the downward spiral of jail, poverty and emotional distress as the result of child support court orders. We should try to be clear about one thing: Child Support is not about the amount of money needed to raise children. It is about the transfer of wealth from a politically disconnected group (fathers) to a politically well-connected group (mothers). It is the main battlefield of the Great Gender War. The lives of thousands of men are destroyed daily in Family Courts while forced to subsidize the unraveling of their families.
1. Child support has no quid pro quo relation to parenting time. An ex-wife can ignore a parenting time court-order, refuse to allow her ex-husband to see his children and still continue to receive full child-support from her ex-husband's garnished wages.
2. Child support income for the mother is tax-free. The taxes are paid by the father.
3. The mother does not have to account for the child support money. She can spend it however she pleases.
4. The guidelines for child support amounts have no firm well thought out modern foundations.
When I first read that Walter Scott was behind in his child support payments I immediately understood how this quiet man came to be shot by the police. Killing a black "dead-beat" father is almost too politically easy. I'm surprised the police officer took the bait. Probably because it was his first kill. Thousands of men, every day, enter the downward spiral of jail, poverty and emotional distress as the result of child support court orders. We should try to be clear about one thing: Child Support is not about the amount of money needed to raise children. It is about the transfer of wealth from a politically disconnected group (fathers) to a politically well-connected group (mothers). It is the main battlefield of the Great Gender War. The lives of thousands of men are destroyed daily in Family Courts while forced to subsidize the unraveling of their families.
21
Insightful. Perfectly written. Clearly sets forth the problem with the system. The decline in marriage is directly related to this draconian and disfunctional system. You said it best when you said the family courts are destroying thousands of lives. It is not only men though; it is their children who are alienated from their fathers by vengeful former wives and a callous and unfair system.
7
What utter nonsense. Yeah, urban African-American women are too busy with their political connection activities, funding Super PACs, and the like to care for their children, while the innocent dads that conceived but will not support their children suffer. Your pity party will be thinly attended.
11
You forgot number 5:
5) The mother can deduct the children from her income tax return but the father cannot since even if he pays for them, they are not "his" children.
When one person is before forced to support another with no rights to the products of their earnings whatsoever, that's called SLAVERY.
5) The mother can deduct the children from her income tax return but the father cannot since even if he pays for them, they are not "his" children.
When one person is before forced to support another with no rights to the products of their earnings whatsoever, that's called SLAVERY.
10
The American Judicial system is a business....
From law enforcement ( without crime no need for so many police or resources) , the prosecutorial process( rife with prosecutors and D.A.'s seeking to advance their careers primarily),to the judges( who circumvent and oversimplify law due to political leanings or aspirations).
America's judicial system is a... for profit and other temporal gain.
From law enforcement ( without crime no need for so many police or resources) , the prosecutorial process( rife with prosecutors and D.A.'s seeking to advance their careers primarily),to the judges( who circumvent and oversimplify law due to political leanings or aspirations).
America's judicial system is a... for profit and other temporal gain.
13
Child support guidelines are generally based on how much of parents' income is spent on children - e.g. 21% when there is one child, 42% when there are three children, etc. This reflects a laudable focus on "what's best for the children", as it should be. Generally, the resulting support amounts are reasonably fair. But, poor families will likely pay more % of their income than average to meet children's basic needs. And custodial parents, usually mothers, typically bear the brunt of any $$ unfairnesses (amount of support and actual payments) as well as the despicable habit of way too many men of trying to $$ and emotionally abandon children when the men aren't "sleeping with" the mother any longer. So should child support shirking men be put behind bars? No - that's counterproductive; the same govt $$ to pay for their incarceration costs would better be spent on direct support for the children and keeping the shirker in the workforce. Do poor parents typically pay way too much in legal fees for divorce and child support collection? Yes - so we should consider providing subsidized legal help, perhaps scaled like the Affordable Care Act to provide more help for lower income people. Our existing systems need tweaking so the poor children and poor custodial parents are better supported. The kids deserve it.
4
My first thought upon reading this heart wrenching article, was that debtor's prison is alive and well in the 21st century, and that we are making money off of the poor in a most counterproductive and cruel way, that only does further harm to the children it purports to help. My second thought was that Walter Scott, unmarried father of four, and training to become a massage therapist, while working as a forklift operator, was very likely running from the police -- and certain arrest -- for this reason. And then my heart-wrenched self felt nauseated too.
8
Yet another example of how politicians, campaigning for office by promising to put scofflaws in jail, wreak incredible damage on children, families, and society.
All while raising taxes ...
All while raising taxes ...
6
As if the Democrat Feminist brigades never demanded over the past 30 years that their always-amenable legislators in Blue State bastions pass draconian laws about "spousal abuse" and "deadbeat dads"? Ask the Liberal politicians who've been hectored by the Intelligentsia into doing just that.
3
Or cutting taxes and taking money from Peter to pay Paul.
So let me get this straight. On this topic the Supremes hands down a ruling, and states seem to be free to either deliberately thumb their noses at it or feign ignorance. Yet when Citizens United comes down states rush to either update or repeal their campaign finance laws, with state legislatures acting like it was an imperial decree issued on pain of death. Fine country we have circa 2015.
6
Stepdad's persepctive: he's behind 18k and did not make a single child support payment in 2014. We dont press the issue because the two kids still want to see him even though he only shows up 80% of the time (thats whats awesome about a childs love). On the other hand, the guy is white trash. Cant hold a job, and would rather spend money on cigarettes and going out to the bar. He has lost overnight visitation due to the condition in which the kids were returning; not just cleanliness but flea bites/bed bug bites. Me and my wife both work and have two more kids together, so yes the payments would absolutely help. But who am I to take the kid's dad out of their life? If we were not able to support all four kids, it would be one thing, but I knew what I was getting into. As the upper hand though, it's always nice to be able to hold it against him if needed... he is not cordial with my wife at all, using condescending language if i am not present at pickup/dropoff. And if he ever puts the kids in danger we can clip him out quickly due to child support arrears.
15
Let me asked a question? Why did your wife have multiple children with a DEADBEAT? Could this be because she knew how he was yet knows someone like the state or a new husband would come along? Just curious.
1
I wondered the same thing, coptic.
Skip out on your taxes and you're in for the same harsh treatment. The root problem here is that the state is too deeply involved in family life (or, more exactly, ex-family) life; the state becomes a party to otherwise private arrangements, and the state's default touch is a heavy hand.
The gay marriage debate, with all its associated rancor and multi-level absurdities, has convinced me that the state should just step away from the whole business of regulating marriage. Or maybe it should restrict itself to recognizing gay marriages alone, for civil rights reasons.
The gay marriage debate, with all its associated rancor and multi-level absurdities, has convinced me that the state should just step away from the whole business of regulating marriage. Or maybe it should restrict itself to recognizing gay marriages alone, for civil rights reasons.
3
When my ex-husband and I got divorced, my salary was three times higher than his. I told my lawyer I wanted NO child support because I knew my ex could barely make ends meet, but he would always chip in what he could. I was dismayed when the lawyer told me the law required some support be stipulated. We went with the minimum allowed, but my ex and I had a private agreement that he wouldn't have to pay until he earned at least $20,000 per year. Our daughter is now 22. My ex has never hit that income level. He has, however, stepped up whenever he could. Not all moms require support, and they should be expected to look for work and contribute financially to their kids as well.
21
Why wasn't it stipulated that you pay your ex some child support, especially since he made much less?
In New York, a person facing the possibility of commitment to jail for his or her willful failure comply with a child support order is entitled to free counsel, if he or she qualifies economically.
There other enforcement measures that can be and are utilized before jail. The simplest is wage garnishment; but when a person has no on the books wages, garnishment is impossible. Another measure is job training, which can be voluntary or court mandated; however, that's only effective when the obligor complies with the training.
Child support obligors can also proactively seek modifications of their orders, which can sometimes reduce their prospective obligations, and sometimes reduce at least a portion of their arrears.
To begin with, it's best when orders are based on an obligor's actual, full-time income; the only way for the obligor to present this information is if he or she actively participates in the proceedings and takes advantage of job training programs that are available if he or she is unemployed or underemployed. When obligors absent themselves from the proceedings, or otherwise obfuscate their earnings, the law has to allow for other ways by which to enter child support orders.
While the phrase may seem hackneyed to some, it IS the best interests of the children that always need to be considered. After all, 8 year olds can't go out and work for themselves. We don't want to go back to the bad old days of the 19th and early 20th centuries for this reason, too.
There other enforcement measures that can be and are utilized before jail. The simplest is wage garnishment; but when a person has no on the books wages, garnishment is impossible. Another measure is job training, which can be voluntary or court mandated; however, that's only effective when the obligor complies with the training.
Child support obligors can also proactively seek modifications of their orders, which can sometimes reduce their prospective obligations, and sometimes reduce at least a portion of their arrears.
To begin with, it's best when orders are based on an obligor's actual, full-time income; the only way for the obligor to present this information is if he or she actively participates in the proceedings and takes advantage of job training programs that are available if he or she is unemployed or underemployed. When obligors absent themselves from the proceedings, or otherwise obfuscate their earnings, the law has to allow for other ways by which to enter child support orders.
While the phrase may seem hackneyed to some, it IS the best interests of the children that always need to be considered. After all, 8 year olds can't go out and work for themselves. We don't want to go back to the bad old days of the 19th and early 20th centuries for this reason, too.
3
Social or community absurdity occurs when everyone does their job properly and the results are the opposite of what was intended. Police arrest. Prosecutors prosecute. Jail doors slam. The system spins and the result is broken lives pushed farther and farther from having a stable, decent life of employment and stability.
We have a more or less permanent class of the dispossessed, the unwanted, in America. They are people of all races, but are more likely to be black because of historic discrimination, economic repression, lynchings, jailings and re-enslavement. This class consists of the lower 1/5th economically, but it might be as large as the lower 1/3 in economic terms. Without legal assistance and uninformed about courts, the dispossessed are stuck in a downward cycle.
We read in the NY Times that the police in America are feeling "hurt" because of the accusations of excessive violence and murder hurled in their direction. They fail to understand is that in many cases they have been sent on the wrong mission. They are being used as agents of social and economic repression (Ferguson Syndrome) which, in turn, means they are in too frequent contact with a subset of citizens that leads to violence, both ways.
I have spent time in North Charleston and it is obvious, from the number of bail bond stores, that being arrested there is very common. Laws, instead of being used to promote the common welfare, are being used as a means to push people down and keep them there.
We have a more or less permanent class of the dispossessed, the unwanted, in America. They are people of all races, but are more likely to be black because of historic discrimination, economic repression, lynchings, jailings and re-enslavement. This class consists of the lower 1/5th economically, but it might be as large as the lower 1/3 in economic terms. Without legal assistance and uninformed about courts, the dispossessed are stuck in a downward cycle.
We read in the NY Times that the police in America are feeling "hurt" because of the accusations of excessive violence and murder hurled in their direction. They fail to understand is that in many cases they have been sent on the wrong mission. They are being used as agents of social and economic repression (Ferguson Syndrome) which, in turn, means they are in too frequent contact with a subset of citizens that leads to violence, both ways.
I have spent time in North Charleston and it is obvious, from the number of bail bond stores, that being arrested there is very common. Laws, instead of being used to promote the common welfare, are being used as a means to push people down and keep them there.
6
I agree with your general philosophical observation but with this caveat: The child-support system's abuses and the tragic shooting death of a "deadbeat dad" reflects how society often claims to have best intentions (protecting children) when in reality it means paying off various special interest groups suited to making the problems worse rather than better.
Consider that if a judge awards custody of a child to a father whose more financially capable of taking care of them then there's no work for the army of bureaucrats (including himself) who gets paid to issue judgments and warrants to collect money from one person and give it to the other. Your local meter maid doesn't get paid by helping to make it easier for you to park. The system makes money by making things worse just as big oil makes money if nobody has solar panels on their rooftops.
Black men were better off back about 50 years ago when families were intact and there were fewer options for women to go on welfare or have careers and then still insist that men live up to breadwinner roles. Most of the new affluent jobs went to middle class white women. Social security transfers money from those who die young (mostly black men) and to those who live the longest (Asian and white women).
White males receive little sympathy from progressives even as they model their utopian societies upon Western Europe. I know plenty of poor, working class white men who live their lives in peace without attacking the police. They've been getting shot in the back for decades, both figuratively and literally, after failing to pay child-support but the NYT has never cared because it wasn't a race issue.
Consider that if a judge awards custody of a child to a father whose more financially capable of taking care of them then there's no work for the army of bureaucrats (including himself) who gets paid to issue judgments and warrants to collect money from one person and give it to the other. Your local meter maid doesn't get paid by helping to make it easier for you to park. The system makes money by making things worse just as big oil makes money if nobody has solar panels on their rooftops.
Black men were better off back about 50 years ago when families were intact and there were fewer options for women to go on welfare or have careers and then still insist that men live up to breadwinner roles. Most of the new affluent jobs went to middle class white women. Social security transfers money from those who die young (mostly black men) and to those who live the longest (Asian and white women).
White males receive little sympathy from progressives even as they model their utopian societies upon Western Europe. I know plenty of poor, working class white men who live their lives in peace without attacking the police. They've been getting shot in the back for decades, both figuratively and literally, after failing to pay child-support but the NYT has never cared because it wasn't a race issue.
2
In response top your last paragraph, "PolishKnight", it is easier for all of us, including reporters and editors at the Times, to grasp an issue when it appears to grow from an historical pattern of abuse. Further, the "race issue" in Ferguson and elsewhere has been highlighted by demonstrations and made inescapable by riots. "News" often consists of things that go terribly wrong and riots are certainly symbolic of that outcome.
If our society were 100% white and the poor were nonetheless subject to vastly unfair treatment in the court system, etc., it would still be difficult to get attention to the matter. We, all of us, tend to look at things that are exceptionally bad and treat day to day injustice as just the way business, and life, is conducted.
By the way, as for people being shot in the back, there is no allegation in most of these cases that people attacked the police. As a police union official was quoted recently in the Times, they failed to "obey orders".
If our society were 100% white and the poor were nonetheless subject to vastly unfair treatment in the court system, etc., it would still be difficult to get attention to the matter. We, all of us, tend to look at things that are exceptionally bad and treat day to day injustice as just the way business, and life, is conducted.
By the way, as for people being shot in the back, there is no allegation in most of these cases that people attacked the police. As a police union official was quoted recently in the Times, they failed to "obey orders".
1
I worked as a clerk in the Family Court, Child Support Division, for a while, and I saw this play out numerous times first hand. The judges would send people to jail for missing child support payments, get sent to jail, then lose their jobs rendering them incapable of making further payments. However, this was not the norm. The norm, at least in the location of that court, were undocumented workers who were paid off the books, claimed they had no income and constantly applied for reductions in payments. Other times people would claim poverty, and then pull out of the court parking lot in a luxury vehicle. While jail sentences did occur, they generally only did so where the failure to pay was willful, or where the parent was reckless in his financial affairs. This may not be the case in other jurisdictions, but from what I saw the system could in some cases be even more punitive than what is already in place.
5
Other times people would claim poverty, and then pull out of the court parking lot in a luxury vehicle.
--------------------------
In that American Icon, a "welfare Cadillac."
When I declared Bankruptcy in 2000, I was allowed to keep my Harley, my 1980 Fiat, and my Mercury Sable, since none were worth more than $18,000.00, the cutoff point. I'd bought the Harley only 8 months before, knowing that.
--------------------------
In that American Icon, a "welfare Cadillac."
When I declared Bankruptcy in 2000, I was allowed to keep my Harley, my 1980 Fiat, and my Mercury Sable, since none were worth more than $18,000.00, the cutoff point. I'd bought the Harley only 8 months before, knowing that.
3
So your claiming most men simply worked under the table and had luxury vehicles? Sorry not buying it. I knew 2 women who worked for the courts and say the exact opposite. You conveniently leave out that your former employer right down to the judge making the order and the state all profit from each case. The very woman who study was used to write the child support laws based on the deadbeat dads are rampant myth admits she made it all up and No epidemic of deadbeat dads ever existed. Her name is Lenore Weitzman. Google (Post DIVORCE WEALTH gap was wrong author AGREES) not for you but for those reading your comment and want the truth. This has helped destroy us in the black community and people like you spreading misinformation are a part of it. Now it has spread everywhere based all on fraud. The very author of this fraud admits it. Nice try
1
The most dangerous thing to give a judge is the ability to "Impute" an income to someone in a civil case. That judge will often make a determination based on subjective conclusions and also if they feel sympathetic to the custodial parent. These award assume that payor has economic stability. We all know that we live in a society which in general doesn't have the economic stability needed to support intact middle class families very well so the poor face an even harder situation. Additionally the barriers to get the order modified are egregiously high. It creates a situation where the law does far more harm than good.
One other issue we have is that the child support determination is not actually tied to the real expenses of the child. There also is NO requirement that the money is actually spent on the child. Child support should be no more that 50% of the actual basic expenses of the child. Food, clothing (limited) , medical and housing and school supplies. If there was a system of receipts and reimbursements, more non custodial parents would pay as they know where the money is going. When you hear of child support awards based on 'lifestyle' which go far beyond what any child could reasonably spend or consume, this is what I speak of. It is a back door alimony.
The courts have engaged in some verbal gymnastics by calling child-support and associated arrears an "obligation" instead of a debt. It is truly a debt and should be treated as such constitutionally.
One other issue we have is that the child support determination is not actually tied to the real expenses of the child. There also is NO requirement that the money is actually spent on the child. Child support should be no more that 50% of the actual basic expenses of the child. Food, clothing (limited) , medical and housing and school supplies. If there was a system of receipts and reimbursements, more non custodial parents would pay as they know where the money is going. When you hear of child support awards based on 'lifestyle' which go far beyond what any child could reasonably spend or consume, this is what I speak of. It is a back door alimony.
The courts have engaged in some verbal gymnastics by calling child-support and associated arrears an "obligation" instead of a debt. It is truly a debt and should be treated as such constitutionally.
3
You are 100 percent correct on how the money is spent - and unless you can afford a lawyer it is a waste of time to say anything
2
We assume that parents have "the right" to 'f-up' their children. Maybe we have out populated the leeway in which that particular right resides.
Like it or not, we're entering an age of biological and psychological knowledge that will vastly change our views on life, and capabilities to "manage" life.
The first big argument will be about whether or not 'd debil made us do it' or whether our natural intelligence and curiosity led us to it. In any event, we're about to eat another apple!
Like it or not, we're entering an age of biological and psychological knowledge that will vastly change our views on life, and capabilities to "manage" life.
The first big argument will be about whether or not 'd debil made us do it' or whether our natural intelligence and curiosity led us to it. In any event, we're about to eat another apple!
1
this story is oh so true and the problem is that the system categorizes all men the same dead beat or not if its in the childs best interst then why punish every one the same and leave the mother completely unaccountable last i checked it takes to to lay down and have a child ,child should never be veiwed as a tool for the scorned woman to get back at the man cause in the in the child looses
2
I think a surgical procedure that eliminates a couple of things is a good first step in dealing with men who don't pay child support.
4
There is a very simple solution to this. When my son was a teenager and started showing an interest in girls, I bought him a box of condoms, sat him down and told him that it was his responsibility not to get a girl pregnant, or he would be responsible for supporting that child for the rest of his life. "Ew, I can't believe we're having this conversation, I"m not even having sex and you're my mom!"
We talk about whose fault this is. This is a societal problem. Perhaps the Father to Father class should be taught in grade 8 at all schools. Also, the mother's of children need to be held accountable. It obviously cost the state to track down and jail a deadbeat dad. The law should only be applied to people who are actively hiding assets. But really, it starts with not having kids in the first place, if you can't support them. Certainly, if you have more than one child and you still haven't made progress in getting work, then if you choose to have more, they are not covered by public assistance. If we stopped provide a net for people who make stupid decisions, they would make different decisions.
We talk about whose fault this is. This is a societal problem. Perhaps the Father to Father class should be taught in grade 8 at all schools. Also, the mother's of children need to be held accountable. It obviously cost the state to track down and jail a deadbeat dad. The law should only be applied to people who are actively hiding assets. But really, it starts with not having kids in the first place, if you can't support them. Certainly, if you have more than one child and you still haven't made progress in getting work, then if you choose to have more, they are not covered by public assistance. If we stopped provide a net for people who make stupid decisions, they would make different decisions.
14
So what happened to equality? Is it not also a females responsibility to prevent pregnancy as well?
2
Instead of severely punishing dead beat Dads for not paying child support, the courts should order community service as an alternative. Men who either lost their jobs due to the economy or are unable to financially better themselves through education & retraining are in a touch predicament. If they were to speak to young boys in schools, Boys & Girls clubs or through public service announcements, they might be able to persuade men to think twice about fathering children that they are unable to financially support. Sex education and economic planning go hand in hand to combat the scourge of children born out of wedlock. Jailing men is only exacerbating their children's rocky future by preventing them to act as responsible fathers. Prevention is always preferable to punishment and it starts by educating youth about the consequences of promiscuity. This issue also underscore why women need a right to choose their reproductive future as they are contributing to this epidemic by having babies that they can't provide for.
6
I have very mixed feelings about this story. Having just finished my child support obligations after more than 19 years, I have very little sympathy for the deadbeats who are not supporting their children. They make it hard on those of us who are diligently making their payments both in the good economic times and the bad. It comes down to priorities. If the child lived in the same home as the non-paying parent, they would find a way to pay for food and clothes for their children. The needs are the same whether or not the parent lives with them.
All that said, dealing with the state child welfare agencies can be a nightmare and the laws seem to assume that we will not pay unless forced to do so. Every time I would start a new job, a court order would arrive in the first week garnishing my wages. The only reason that my wages were garnished is because my ex-wife requested it. She did not need to show cause or justify it in any way, she just needed to ask. In my situation, it was a matter of control, not due to late or missing payments. My guess is that my situation is not terribly unusual considering we are looking at the remnants of failed relationships in most cases.
All that said, dealing with the state child welfare agencies can be a nightmare and the laws seem to assume that we will not pay unless forced to do so. Every time I would start a new job, a court order would arrive in the first week garnishing my wages. The only reason that my wages were garnished is because my ex-wife requested it. She did not need to show cause or justify it in any way, she just needed to ask. In my situation, it was a matter of control, not due to late or missing payments. My guess is that my situation is not terribly unusual considering we are looking at the remnants of failed relationships in most cases.
7
The paradigm of the system is this: Men will be the ones primarily responsible for making the system work. They will have little motivation (little rights to children many of them may not have wanted) with the highest burden (make the money and give it to someone else) while women will be given much motivation (have a baby, make money) and few burdens (cash checks, legal infant abandonment available.)
It's like the welfare state on steroids.
A simple solution is to reverse what the courts currently do: Grant custody to the parent best able to pay for them. This would eliminate an army of bureaucrats needed to force one parent to pay money to the other and also reduce the incentive to bring a child into poverty (since they would lose it.)
It's like the welfare state on steroids.
A simple solution is to reverse what the courts currently do: Grant custody to the parent best able to pay for them. This would eliminate an army of bureaucrats needed to force one parent to pay money to the other and also reduce the incentive to bring a child into poverty (since they would lose it.)
2
Child support laws, while hideous, at least have a place because the child's welfare is involved.
Alimony, on the other hand, is an antiquated concept and should be completely stricken from the laws.
Alimony, on the other hand, is an antiquated concept and should be completely stricken from the laws.
6
All I see here are the consequences of bad decisions. One is having kids without the ability for support them. Two, in Scott's case, evading arrest. Scott would still be alive today if he had simply complied with commands from law enforcement.
6
How is putting someone in jail, who needs to be earning a paycheck to support his children, acting in the best interest of the child? The government has now nearly ensured that this person will never pay his child support by making it much, much harder to get a job. How many companies will hire someone who has served time in jail.
Jailing deadbeat Dad's may make people feel some satisfaction by punishing their bad choice - but it does nothing to solve the problem.
Jailing deadbeat Dad's may make people feel some satisfaction by punishing their bad choice - but it does nothing to solve the problem.
5
It appears that everyone agrees that parents should support their children, planned or not. I think most of us that ARE parents will also acknowledge that just because we make rules for our children, they will not always obey. So lets deal with the reality that there ARE some deadbeats who have ability, yet refuse to pay. Those people deserve whatever they get. Two points though: As the capital punishment discussions show, the threat of jail time is not a universal deterrent, since most people figure they will never get caught. You cannot legislate morality. Second, for those who say its fair to take 70% or more of a payor's income, consider what the circumstances would be if that person were still WITH the family? There would not be any more money available, so the child will still suffer. A 2-parent family is a great thing, but is not the solution to all these problems. I've been part of that system, and was lucky enough to never fall behind, and to be able to have an attorney unscrew things when the state agencies frequently missapplied or "lost" payments. Everyone is not that lucky, and trust me, there are a lot of people working in that system who just don't care about either the children or the parents. Not all of them, but a sizable percentage. And before the flaming responses start, reread my opening comments. This is NOT a defense of deadbeat parents in any way. Just a comment that preaching is easy, but does not solve the problem.
2
Makes me wonder how many delinquent fathers are being incarcerated in private, for-profit prisons, America's great burgeoning industry... not that there could possibly be an ulterior motive among certain judges for punishing fathers while further damaging unsupported children.
4
Yes, child support should be enforced because how else can you bring up a child? Children need more than just love and fresh air. I am not justifying the actions of those who skip child-support payments. Far from it. But the punitive measures like jail-time only leads to a negative vicious cycle, difficult ( nay, impossible ) to get out of. There should be another way - like garnishing wages. The IRS does it. So the groundwork is already done. Then there is no escape from child support if there is a stringent law to disclose income monitored very closely of these flagged people. Locking them up simply does not result in child support. It is a sure way of NOT getting any support.
You miss completely the real damage--the damage that comes to the child who knows his father has been stupidly locked into jail.
1
Well, all the dead beat Dads in the West who are trying to avoid paying their back child support or having their wages/income forfieted just may be preparing to flee to my neighboring state in Idaho across the River. Yep, once again the Idaho legislation is getting ready to shoot it's self in the foot and in doing so (further) push the poor children and mothers who reside in Idaho into the ranks of poverty. The Idaho Legislature has rejected the nessary legislation making Idaho a signatory of a an international treaty on child support which is mandatory for states who wish to continue to recieve federal monies for child support services ( est. to be about 250 mil in federal monies in Idaho alone). The fantastic excuse put out by the all knowing Idaho legislature is that they are, " Afraid that Sharia Law will be instituted in Idaho" if Idaho becomes a signatory of the International treaty.
Obviously some common sense should be employed in structuring child support. The goal should be that a child is cared for, and child support is commensurate with ability to pay. Jail is not the answer for those who get behind in payments for whatever reason, instead the child support payment structure should be reexamined to reflect ability to keep up with payments (people lose jobs, become ill, etc.). All that said, there is the element of personal responsibility that is not being examined here, and is probably the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Some people have more children than they could possibly afford to support under any circumstance. This is unfair to the children and to society which will bear the burden of taking care of the welfare needs of those children. And no, I do not have any answer for this conundrum, because morally there isn't one.
Children are born and they need to be cared for, and it is up to society to meet those needs if the parents cannot. The parents should however, be held accountable for those needs within reasonable ability to provide support, without fear of jail. Jailing someone for not paying child support only adds to society's burden, and further reduces the person's ability to provide that support.
Children are born and they need to be cared for, and it is up to society to meet those needs if the parents cannot. The parents should however, be held accountable for those needs within reasonable ability to provide support, without fear of jail. Jailing someone for not paying child support only adds to society's burden, and further reduces the person's ability to provide that support.
If the person who was responsible for creating a new life is not able to live up to his obligations to provide support, then the children and the estranged woman become the wards of the state, and need to go on public assistance. I wonder if that would be a right model for raising children, especially those in black communities where broken homes often are attributed to the social ills that persist among members of that community.
I suppose that the person behind on support payments can always go before the judge and make the case that the support payments are unaffordable, and incompatible with his current earnings. Avoiding court dates is not the best way to deal with this responsibility.
The solution to this problem is not achieved through legislation but through social change in the black community.
I suppose that the person behind on support payments can always go before the judge and make the case that the support payments are unaffordable, and incompatible with his current earnings. Avoiding court dates is not the best way to deal with this responsibility.
The solution to this problem is not achieved through legislation but through social change in the black community.
2
Completely lost in this article is any consideration for the child who depends on this support. A child's needs are not hypothetical or tied to their father's actual incomes. Pleading an inability to pay does substitute for food, clothing, and an education for a child they willingly brought into the world. I have no pity for these men, only their children.
11
Obviously if the parent has no money, and some do not, they cannot pay that money to their spouse no matter long you keep the person in jail. But I'm guessing rich white men with their lawyers are by far the biggest scofflaws. And the conservative policy of denying education and birth control to poor women is a big part of the problem. Conservatives also claim a child has a right to be born, but conservatives oppose rights for children who are born...because they might have to pay taxes to supports those children whose parents don't have any money.
1
Selective pity?....Do you have children?
1
So your solution is what? To squeeze blood from a blood from a stone? The article shows that in many cases the men WANT to do what they can for the kids but often don't have the money needed. Punishing them for that leads to even less money going to the children as they lose driver's licenses, jobs and go to jail. The article points out that the legal expectations for these non-custodial fathers often exceed the expectations of the custodial mothers, meaning some of these supposedly deadbeat dads are doing more to provide for their children than the mothers are. It's not surprising that you (and many others) are unable to feel sympathy for such poor men, but that's your moral failing, not theirs.
3
without jail there is no incentive. this is a public policy issue, not a private, commercial debt involved here
4
There are a lot of people screaming about the "tax payer" having to pick up the tag. The one thing that I can guarantee you is that the guy is costing you more money in jail, this is just dumb people. The vast majority of the money owed could be collected through wage garnishment, withholding of tax refunds and similar means. If there is nothing to garnish the overwhelming probability is that you are trying to get blood from a stone, and further damaging both everyone involved, and the "taxpayer" who has to pay for the incarceration. They aren't paying ANY taxes in jail, not one red cent.
I am sure there is plumber out there somewhere that is the exception to the above, but making law and policy on the odd exception has rather poor results.
I am sure there is plumber out there somewhere that is the exception to the above, but making law and policy on the odd exception has rather poor results.
8
This needs to change. No one should go to jail for being poor. It does not help a child to send his father to jail because he cant afford child support. Child support laws need to help both parents be involved with their kids, not punish poor fathers and families. It should not be a crime to be poor man with kids. Courts should not be allowed to jail people for not paying fines if they are unemployed or do not at have any assets or money. Abuse of the poor through the courts must stop.
4
This is politically incorrect but how about not having children that you cannot support in the first place.
16
No it is not politically incorrect it is intentionally hidden by the right wing nutters so that we don't have a reasonable discussion about birth control & abortion rights. A discussion which would reasonably lead into discussion of the normality of human sexual behaviors especially when one is poor as a form of making ones self feel better.
Your post is based in an assumption you have made and brought here, the subjects in the article are good fathers who want to pay they simply cannot pay due to circumstances beyond their control.
Your post is based in an assumption you have made and brought here, the subjects in the article are good fathers who want to pay they simply cannot pay due to circumstances beyond their control.
1
One conclusion is inescapable: The System as designed slowly grinds the poor and working poor into powder. Everything it does is done to keep the poor poor: everything from extortionate "pay-day" loans, usurious credit card APRs, high retail sales tax rates, our blatantly unfair judicial system and attacks by crass politicians like Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS). Recently, he cynically pandered to wealthy Republican donors and voters alike by gutting his state's already relatively modest anti-poverty programs -- the aim, to limit access or eliminate them altogether; eliminate any meaningful public assistance to the working poor. And while he did it he publicly excoriated the poor for being poor.
Add to all that terrible public school systems (like we have here in Chicago) so underfunded that they can't adequately prepare children from poor families for gainful employment. The end result is what we see everywhere today. A cycle of poverty that's actually a trap from which there's little real chance to escape.
And for what? Why do they do it? What do they gain?
Add to all that terrible public school systems (like we have here in Chicago) so underfunded that they can't adequately prepare children from poor families for gainful employment. The end result is what we see everywhere today. A cycle of poverty that's actually a trap from which there's little real chance to escape.
And for what? Why do they do it? What do they gain?
3
All these comments are driven by either our own experiences or our perceptions, which are based on our core beliefs. I have my own story, which I find highly stressful due to changing circumstance and a court system inured in decisions made by judges who have their own core beliefs and prejudices, regardless of the spirit of the law. Laws are interpretative, and thus subject to opinion, and the result can never conform adequately to an individual's position.
Everyone's a victim except the courts, judges, lawyers, clerks and guards who's income will forever be guaranteed in the morass we created and they perpetuate.
Everyone's a victim except the courts, judges, lawyers, clerks and guards who's income will forever be guaranteed in the morass we created and they perpetuate.
2
"That’s your problem. You figure it out." is the crux of what America has become. This is the same mentality in our GOP led congress and now also our judicial system. It's absolutely insane how much humanity has deteriorated in this country. It's shameful. it's disgusting. It's sad.
2
Why not write an article about men who don't support their children and have more and more children? Who do you think should support these kids? And what do you think about men who make many women pregnant and leave them to their own devices to raise AND support their children?
I'm sure the NY Times won't like my solution.
I'm sure the NY Times won't like my solution.
11
Your solution - would that perhaps be asking the women why they chose to get pregnant? It takes two to tango as my father used to say.
4
Do the women bear no responsibility? They are the one with the final say on whether to bring a child into the world. The father has no say and cannot opt out of being a parent. Women are also generally the primary custodial parent and can receive money from the government and the father without having to work themselves. And yet you still only blame the men.
5
I understand too well the frustration of both the providing parent and the absent parent. I've always wondered how the court expect the absent parent to make payments towards child support if they are placed in jail for being behind on payments. However, what's the point of having all of these children and expect not to take care of them. One of my main problem is, if this absent parents are suppose to be so poor, why it that most of them dress better than heir children, every other month they're driving a new car, but they get in front of the judge and give them this sob story about they can't find a job, but they walk in the courtroom with the latest sneakers on there feet. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Or they say "b/c of my record i can't find a job". There are plenty of resources that assist will assist offenders. They have to out in the foot work. Also i do agree that it's not fair that the absent parent has to work hard to pay but the parent that is a well-bodied individual can set on their behind all day and just depend on child support funds. That is ludicrous, and in most cases the child doesn't reap the benefits of the funds. Then to matters even worse the absent are often times refuse visitation b/c of their inability to pay (per the mother). It's just a mess. I hope that there is some kind of resolve to this issue with child support.
1
In Florida, there is a PERMANENT ALIMONY law on the books since the 1800's, which we are trying to overturn. Someone should not be entitled to receive money forever from a divorce. Child Support is also a contentious issue when the numbers are skewed in favor of the receiving parent. We need to refigure our laws, jail is not the issue.
1
The take-away here is "whatever you do, do NOT fall in love with the wrong person and have children, do NOT get into any kind of accident or have any kind of mental disorders from your military service, and above all do NOT under any circumstances lose your job for any reason." And be grateful you live in the greatest nation on earth.
2
The first two things you mentioned are voluntary. Accidents and disease are not.
Humans have control over their reproduction; unfortunately most choose not to exercise it and we end up with millions of new neglected and poorly parented new children each year. In the US alone.
Humans have control over their reproduction; unfortunately most choose not to exercise it and we end up with millions of new neglected and poorly parented new children each year. In the US alone.
2
Many fathers simply won't make the sacrifices necessary to pay child support. They instead will spend money on women, booze, drugs and new cars (Scott told the police officer he was planning to buy the Mercedes he was driving.). The solution is work-release programs. Those who child support can keep their jobs, but spend non-work hours in jail until they catch up on their child support.
7
In a "for profit" jail system there is a direct incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible. It might not make any sense to a rational person reviewing the facts and realities, but it makes good sense to an investor.
2
I spent several years running a homeless shelter watching this play out literally hundreds of times I really hope that this issue gets more visibility so that fathers aren't continually crushed as they try to rebuild their lives and support their children. Each stint in jail makes it increasingly difficult for fathers to find a job after release. Many men would finally be getting a foothold (new jobs -- often several part-time & temporary jobs, trying to save money for a security deposit and first/last month rent for housing, add in being newly sober or clean) and then WHAM back to jail for unpaid child support -- even when they'd done as much as they could to communicate with courts etc...
1
In Georgia if a woman has a child with another man then her ex will pay more in child support, even if he has nothing to do about that child.
The thinking is that, since the mothers expenses are now greater due to the new child, then the ex will need to pay more to keep his children in the same lifestyle. However, if the father has another child, his child support payment remains the same. It's crazy.
The thinking is that, since the mothers expenses are now greater due to the new child, then the ex will need to pay more to keep his children in the same lifestyle. However, if the father has another child, his child support payment remains the same. It's crazy.
2
I was divorced in 2007. Alimony and Child support was set on my 2006 income, my peak earning year. I work on Wall Street. The collapse of the markets came in 2008 - 2009. My income has yet to recover directly because my wages are so heavily garnished that I have no money to grow my business or for that matter even live! I have never once missed a payment for A&C since 2006, and yet my drivers license and a warrant is issued for my arrest approximately every 3 to 4 months. I have been picked up on warrants and put in jail three separate times. I then have to explain to my boss where I have been and why, needless to say this does not resonate well with him or his boss and I am on very shaky ground with my job. On top of that you have to pay the state $100 dollars each time to renew your Drivers License in the state of NJ.
In NJ it is almost impossible to get a reduction in A&C support. Also in NJ, the state does NOT separate alimony and child support so even though I am making enough to cover my entire child support payment, because it is comingled and is proportionately divided. NJ does this so they get the most from the title IX funds from the federal government. license suspensions and warrants should only be used for the most egregious cases of non payment. We need to take the jailing of men whose only crime is they cannot pay their support off the table so other incidents like what happened to Mr. Scott do not befall others.
In NJ it is almost impossible to get a reduction in A&C support. Also in NJ, the state does NOT separate alimony and child support so even though I am making enough to cover my entire child support payment, because it is comingled and is proportionately divided. NJ does this so they get the most from the title IX funds from the federal government. license suspensions and warrants should only be used for the most egregious cases of non payment. We need to take the jailing of men whose only crime is they cannot pay their support off the table so other incidents like what happened to Mr. Scott do not befall others.
4
If you have never missed a payment, why are the warrants routinely being issued?
Having previously held the position of Executive Director of Child Support Enforcement for six years, I feel that I can say this with a great amount of certainty...the laws regarding how child support cases are handled are antiquated at best, and are in DIRE NEED OF CHANGE!! I had cases ranging from where a father owed over $100,000, and had never paid a dime, or had any type of relationship with his children, all the way to a father giving over three fourths of his income in child support payments to a woman, who lived in a wealthy neighborhood and drove a brand new BMW. He lived with his parents. Although I spent six years defending both my actions and the actions of my staff, we continued to be at the pinnacle of blame, by both parents. We did not create the laws, nor were we in a position to change them. I can assure you that "race" never was a consideration on the part of our agency. We had a mother file a racial complaint against an employee handling her case. Imagine her surprise when she got to court just to find out that the employee was of the same race.
I, and my staff, worked diligently in making sure that ONLY the egregious cases, where the father had no intention of working, nor had any relationship with the child/children he helped bring into this world, were criminally adjudicated. But, according to child support laws, there were some cases where the man was charged criminally, because the "law required it," not us.
Write your elected officials!
I, and my staff, worked diligently in making sure that ONLY the egregious cases, where the father had no intention of working, nor had any relationship with the child/children he helped bring into this world, were criminally adjudicated. But, according to child support laws, there were some cases where the man was charged criminally, because the "law required it," not us.
Write your elected officials!
4
I do sympathize with your previous position and the fact that most of us have to work to survive--but there is such a thing as conscientious objection. Maybe this represents aspirational ethics, but if you were involved in a system that is inherently requiring you to carry out significant justice then perhaps you should write your officials and do what you can to improve his situation that you have intimate understanding of.
A more foolish and destructive policy would be hard to imagine or to construct. In essence if you can't get blood out of a stone then jail the stone in the hope that it will somehow change things. Like something out of Dickens.
The same conservatives who decry these "deadbeats" with poor children they can't adequately support also usually oppose access to free or inexpensive birth control, as well as abortion providers.
3
Interesting reference to Mr. Scott. My question is why was he out test driving a Benz when he owed so much money in child support arrears?
Obama can do anything he wants to to change the law, but until the mindset of Deadbeat Dads changes to one of responsibility there can be no change for the better.
Obama can do anything he wants to to change the law, but until the mindset of Deadbeat Dads changes to one of responsibility there can be no change for the better.
6
I'm thinking that if citizens were TAXED on their IMPUTED income, the 99% would ALL be incarcerated.
And THAT would get action on 1% Hill, I mean, on Capitol Hill.
And THAT would get action on 1% Hill, I mean, on Capitol Hill.
1
Jail is always the first, and almost only the only, tool used by the US "justice" system. What you have here is simply another branch of the incarceration for profit industry. Nobody in that industry (or any other corporate-run industry) has the good of US society as a whole as one of its goals.
1
Ok so dont have kids if you cant afford them. Use condoms people.
5
Neither the article nor the comments get at the root of the problem here. The entire Child Support Enforcement system as we know it, was developed utilizing bad data! The Clinton administration cited statistics from a booked named “The Divorce Revolution" when the "The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act" was developed and signed, completely ignoring the fact that statements and statistics in the book had been proven inaccurate by a number prominent universities and academics. The author, Lenore Weitzman, even admitted to utilizing flawed data in the book. In short, bad data helped coined a term (deadbeat dad) and the runaway train that is CSE. Are there deadbeat fathers out there, yes, but they’re not as prevalent as we have been led to believe all these years. Every person in this country likely knows of at least one deadbeat and that is part of why the machine is thriving. We can't see past our own experiences to look at the big picture.According to a number of research universities, there is no “deadbeat father” epidemic and never has been. There needs to be a COMPLETE overhaul of this system.
Note: So the legislation was signed by Clinton, who’s wife recently worked with the sitting president that is attempting to remove some of the teeth in the legislation. Hilarie is big advocate of child support reform, Coincidence?
Note: So the legislation was signed by Clinton, who’s wife recently worked with the sitting president that is attempting to remove some of the teeth in the legislation. Hilarie is big advocate of child support reform, Coincidence?
This system of dept extortion is Medieval and a symptom of an overbearing state.
It is no different in Canada.
The system has not caught up to the emanzipation of women and enslaves men even if the ex-wife is wealthy or has a sufficient income of her own.
It is no different in Canada.
The system has not caught up to the emanzipation of women and enslaves men even if the ex-wife is wealthy or has a sufficient income of her own.
It makes sense because it's just like most of the laws that have been passed in the U.S. in the last several decades--Silly, Stupid, Nonsense, Anti-male. This country wants to destroy its men, and it is very successful at doing so.
1
Maybe it's time to set up an island with special rules for special people. An island where traffic violations aren't punished, where no one has to pay for the children they have, and where children can be as disruptive as they'd like to be in class.
Or maybe it's time to say enough is enough. If you can't make it through life without the state helping you sire five children with three different women, while you're busy test driving a Benz, maybe the state should force a vasectomy on you.
Or maybe it's time to say enough is enough. If you can't make it through life without the state helping you sire five children with three different women, while you're busy test driving a Benz, maybe the state should force a vasectomy on you.
9
The US was founded by poor people having children that they could not afford.
1
“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
That is exactly the court's attitude, how you keep a roof over your head is none of their concern. (How it is "in the interests of the children" for their father to be homeless isn't addressed by the court.)
And you're wrong about taking up to 65 percent from a paycheck. In NYS, if you have a court order to pay your ex-wife $150 a week in child support, and you had only three shifts that week at your dreadful, lowly kitchen prep job, and your check was for $155 -- congratulations. You're getting paid $5 that week. Enjoy!
That is exactly the court's attitude, how you keep a roof over your head is none of their concern. (How it is "in the interests of the children" for their father to be homeless isn't addressed by the court.)
And you're wrong about taking up to 65 percent from a paycheck. In NYS, if you have a court order to pay your ex-wife $150 a week in child support, and you had only three shifts that week at your dreadful, lowly kitchen prep job, and your check was for $155 -- congratulations. You're getting paid $5 that week. Enjoy!
2
Not too many are aware of this but a father can have his US passport confiscated when exiting or re-entering the country. Also he can be refused to have one (re) issued if child support is overdue.
This is a recent, newly enacted law in order to catch someone who may want to leave the country instead of paying up. But they've nailed uninformed people on their way back into the country from vacations/cruises, business trips, etc.
This is a recent, newly enacted law in order to catch someone who may want to leave the country instead of paying up. But they've nailed uninformed people on their way back into the country from vacations/cruises, business trips, etc.
4
As much as I am outraged by the continuous murder of unarmed black men at the hand of police officers who in almost all cases do not get held accountable, I cannot see why Mr. Scott should be excused for not paying child support. If he fathers children he needs to be responsible both financially as well as with his time and in support of their mother whether he is romantically involved with her or not. Losing a job is not an excuse to just shut down, "be mad" at the world and start drinking. Mothers do not have this luxury. What do we do when we get sick, hurt, lose jobs, husbands, money, health care coverage, etc? We still have to care for our children. We still have to get up every day and do what needs to be done. Men come and go, but children stay and we have to take care of them. Fathers more often than not resent paying, try to pay as little as possible regardless of income, only pay if they have also control over how the money is spent and what the child does.
7
If a parent can't afford their child support order, the onus is on them to file a motion to either reduce or hold open support. They need to show the court that they can't afford it. If the parent can demonstrate that their support order can't be met then the court can actually consider adjusting it. The pitfall that most parents walk into is assuming that someone else is going to do the work and change the order for them in court. This assumption frustrates the court and does nothing to help the parent's case.
If the parent files their own motion (which costs maybe $50 at most -- much better than the thousands of dollars accruing in arrears) the court can see that they're being proactive about their situation. Also if a parent is in communication with the local child support office, they'll be a lot more likely to give them a break if they know that the parent is actually trying to find a job or figure out some way to meet their support order.
If the parent files their own motion (which costs maybe $50 at most -- much better than the thousands of dollars accruing in arrears) the court can see that they're being proactive about their situation. Also if a parent is in communication with the local child support office, they'll be a lot more likely to give them a break if they know that the parent is actually trying to find a job or figure out some way to meet their support order.
This non support-jail merry go round is an exceedingly sad situation. But what about the children caught in the middle. For the good of a child parenthood ideally requires some maturity as well as emotional and economic stability. Unfortunately, those requirements, as well as, the creation of potential children are too often overlooked in the heat of libidinal moments. Thus, there is a constant unfair pool of unwanted/uncared for children forced to live in unstable homes; children whose unmet needs set them up to become miserable acting-out adults who have run ins with the law and cause themselves and society great harm thus keeping the cycle of dysfunction and irresponsible behavior going. Therefore, we need to somehow someway break this unfortunate cycle and make taking personal responsibility and using birth control as common as breathing air. On the surface and practically speaking achieving that goal seems impossible. Yet by continuing to be lackadaisical about taking personal responsibility (often considered entertainment in movies and on TV) for when and if to procreate, humanity will continue to suffer in multiple dire and unnecessary ways.
3
Anyone making the argument that these men should be in jail, for what is a civil case - child support - is nuts. It costs more to jail these guys then if the State just paid their child support bills. And what total idiocy to take away a driver's license - brainless - how are they going to get to work to earn the money to pay the bills then?
I know that these laws are motivated by the worse in people, to penalize mainly poor black men and to further weaken and destroy the black family. There is a segment of our society that is happy to lift up black women and kids but is always trying to keep black men down. These child support laws are the modern version of slavery.
I know that these laws are motivated by the worse in people, to penalize mainly poor black men and to further weaken and destroy the black family. There is a segment of our society that is happy to lift up black women and kids but is always trying to keep black men down. These child support laws are the modern version of slavery.
2
how can society possibly "further weaken and destroy the black family" when the male who helped make the child refuses to pay for said child? I'd say that male is destroying the black family all by himself.
4
In the most recent highly publicized case of a father in arrears for child support, Mr Scott of North Charleston, he had just bought a Mercedes, I believe, and family members reported how proud of it he was. Is this normal?
2
Again the Benz you all jeep bringing up was almost 20 yrs old. You want him to pay child support however if he tries to get to work to pay it you want him without a car, a license etc. Yea makes sense.
This is obviously a multi-faceted problem. On the one hand we could say that throwing someone in jail when they simply do not have sufficient funds to pay child support is pointless. But then, if we don't throw them in jail, what other steps are being taken to make them understand that we are serious in that....if they fathered a child, they MUST try harder to figure out a way to come up with the money, be it getting rid of their internet and cable, their car, etc? Clearly some of these men need stronger motivations to come up with the money, and obviously the threat of jail is a good motivation. Otherwise, what else is society doing to help these men come up with the money?
However, another side of this coin is the utter lack of planning so often found in such situations. So often there is a total lack of respect between the men and women, as well as no understanding of the huge responsibility of bringing children into this world. I totally agree with another poster below that...many of the mothers are equally responsible for being so 'carefree' about siring children with men who everyone else saw to be the losers they are. You can't tell us that so many baby-mommas really saw no previous warning signs that their baby-daddy boyfriends would become MIA. Everyone else sees it. Why can't these women? Because they don't want to see it. Love is blind, and for many of these women they love the drama. It somehow adds 'meaning' to their lives.
However, another side of this coin is the utter lack of planning so often found in such situations. So often there is a total lack of respect between the men and women, as well as no understanding of the huge responsibility of bringing children into this world. I totally agree with another poster below that...many of the mothers are equally responsible for being so 'carefree' about siring children with men who everyone else saw to be the losers they are. You can't tell us that so many baby-mommas really saw no previous warning signs that their baby-daddy boyfriends would become MIA. Everyone else sees it. Why can't these women? Because they don't want to see it. Love is blind, and for many of these women they love the drama. It somehow adds 'meaning' to their lives.
5
Child support is just another word for wife support. IT JUST DOESNT cost what the courts pile on the ex spouse to raise the child. They make you pay so much in "wife"support" that you can have no life of your own. The extreme is the problem.
5
I thought it important to remind everyone that Mr Scott was driving a Mercedes Benz at the time of his attempted arrest and murder and that he told the officer that he didn't have the title, registration or insurance because the transaction was not yet complete. Perhaps that statement was true, perhaps not. If it was true then one must ask why he chose to spend that money on that car vs child support.
4
Why should anyone be forced to give money to someone else just because you happen to share some gene molecules?
If you want your partner to pay child support in case your relationship ends, You both should sign a treaty where you agree to do so. If you didn't, them I'm sorry the other parent owes you nothing.
If you want your partner to pay child support in case your relationship ends, You both should sign a treaty where you agree to do so. If you didn't, them I'm sorry the other parent owes you nothing.
Actions have consequences and producing a child requires, both legally and morally, that one provides for that child.
Your comment about a pre marriage prenup shows your ignorance of basic human relationships.
If I was a woman, especially a young, unmarried woman, I wouldn't let any man near me unless he and I were using at east one form of birth control each.
Your comment about a pre marriage prenup shows your ignorance of basic human relationships.
If I was a woman, especially a young, unmarried woman, I wouldn't let any man near me unless he and I were using at east one form of birth control each.
1
The Benz you all keep bringing up was over 20yrs old. You just can not win guys. If you have no car to get to work your still a DEADBEAT no matter what.
I work in one of the poorest cities in the USA. All of my clients are black and very poor. What is maddening to me is that these guys continue to have kids without any visible means to support them. It would seem to me that the "cool" thing to do in the black community would be to AVOID having kids you can't possibly hope to support.
12
Sorry but actually in the black community we have over 60% of the mothers with more than one child who having multiple baby daddy's. This is almost 3 times the amount of black men with multiple baby mamas despite the female having 100% reproductive rights. Throw in the incentives you all keep giving them to reproduce and we where the problem is. You just REFUSE to hold women accountable and the blame black men common line is used. Its not working anymore. We have the facts now.
These stories are not new...I taught a upper division undergraduate course entitled "The American Judicial Process" as adjunct faculty at a major public university. Typically a major area of discussion was always civil court processes, and the role of limited jurisdiction courts, i.e., Friend of the Court in particular. As one might expect, and reflective of the increased impact of divorce on families, many of the students had a familiarity of the system and notions of the "deadbeat dad." To make the discussion as informed as possible, I brought in copies of (at the time) state child support tables that were used in calculating the amount paid by the non custodial parent.
Many were surprised and astonished at the amount of information necessary for the calculation, that alone at the amount the non custodial parent paid, i.e., class was split over the payment being too much or too little. I often used a quote by a New York state jurist regarding child support: often it was less than the custodial parent needed and more than the non-custodial parent could afford.
I too fell into child support arrears, at one point owing $5K. I appeared for several show cause hearings with jail a possibility. I brought my income tax returns (which were being intercepted for CS), my job application log, and copies of all bank statements. The FOC attorney, saw I didn't have the income (I was on public assistance, my child was not), and was told to keep looking for work.
Many were surprised and astonished at the amount of information necessary for the calculation, that alone at the amount the non custodial parent paid, i.e., class was split over the payment being too much or too little. I often used a quote by a New York state jurist regarding child support: often it was less than the custodial parent needed and more than the non-custodial parent could afford.
I too fell into child support arrears, at one point owing $5K. I appeared for several show cause hearings with jail a possibility. I brought my income tax returns (which were being intercepted for CS), my job application log, and copies of all bank statements. The FOC attorney, saw I didn't have the income (I was on public assistance, my child was not), and was told to keep looking for work.
2
If the point is to get money to help share the burden of supporting children, taking away the ability to make money is definitely not the solution.
To solve a problem, it would be helpful to eliminate any process that is we know is not part of the solution.
To solve a problem, it would be helpful to eliminate any process that is we know is not part of the solution.
1
How about not having children if you don't want the responsibility of providing for them. I'm very sorry for the family of Mr Scott and believe the police officer should pay the price for what he's done. I don't know how many people noticed but according to the video of the shooting of Mr Scott, you have a man running from the police because he doesn't want to go to jail for non-payment of child support after giving the officer his ID and running from a Mercedes Benz with wheels that probably cost about $4,000.
The not having children if you don't want to pay for them part should be taught in school at an early age.
The not having children if you don't want to pay for them part should be taught in school at an early age.
8
Having witnessed several young female high school friends and some relatives procreate with poor men who were going nowhere under the deluded attempt to create the perfect family, secure real love and affection, and instantly make themselves feel worthwhile- only to have these same boy/men completely skip out on any responsibility months and years later is a slowly-unfolding, heartwrenching tragedy of epic proportions. Never mind the heartbreak of the wretched children brought into this world to a broken and struggling single mother, exhausted and fighting for survival, wondering who or where their father is and why he does not want them, while he goes on to sire multiple other children with different woman, living a carefree life? Think about these poor and neglected children, who often go on to become a scourge on society. Men who do not bear responsibility for the needs of children they bring into this world deserve NO sympathy.
9
$500 a month cash on the barrelhead to every female US citizen from age 15 to 25 who doesn't produce a child in the given month would be a powerful incentive to these young women to look beyond their reproductive organs as a source of self-worth. And at about $70K it would be a lot cheaper than supporting them, their kids and the prison-industrial complex for decades to come.
No sympathy then should be applied to women since there are way more women with multiple fathers than we have men with multiple mothers for their children. Women have 100% reproductive rights and all the incentive to keep having children they can not afford. Blaming men is not working anymore. The numbers reflect the women are choosing to have these children knowin. The state will back them up. You all refuse to hold them accountable.
Don't worry about doing well in school. You can always go on welfare. Also, don't worry about choosing a good man to marry to start a family. If you have unprotected sex with irresponsible men, there's always abortion. And, no need to worry about raising children that you can't afford. Even if that "father" is feckless, the Government will sort him out, if it can't do that, will take on the father role. Don't worry.
5
Yet another item to add to the ever-growing list, "Shame on the United States of America".
There are clearly two separate types of "offender" here - deadbeats, and those making an effort to make good, but falling short either due to unreasonable demands and/or limited opportunity. Yet we are using the same blunt instrument to deal with both. The idea that we would impose a punishment on someone in the latter category that actually makes it more difficult for them to meet their obligations is pure insanity. And the fact that the system would deny relief to a combat veteran struggling due to combat-related stress is the essence of callousness. The irony here, or course, is that deadbeats with means can work their way around it.
It's encouraging to read that the Obama administration has recognized the flaws in the existing policies and is trying to correct them. This is an perfect example of how the Democrats, for all their shortcomings, stand apart from Republicans. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen, but it's clear that we need a more nuanced and compassionate approach to what is obviously not a monolithic problem. When a system of punishment leads an otherwise well-intentioned person to flee in desperation from a routine traffic stop, and results in his being shot in the back, you know it's time for a change.
There are clearly two separate types of "offender" here - deadbeats, and those making an effort to make good, but falling short either due to unreasonable demands and/or limited opportunity. Yet we are using the same blunt instrument to deal with both. The idea that we would impose a punishment on someone in the latter category that actually makes it more difficult for them to meet their obligations is pure insanity. And the fact that the system would deny relief to a combat veteran struggling due to combat-related stress is the essence of callousness. The irony here, or course, is that deadbeats with means can work their way around it.
It's encouraging to read that the Obama administration has recognized the flaws in the existing policies and is trying to correct them. This is an perfect example of how the Democrats, for all their shortcomings, stand apart from Republicans. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen, but it's clear that we need a more nuanced and compassionate approach to what is obviously not a monolithic problem. When a system of punishment leads an otherwise well-intentioned person to flee in desperation from a routine traffic stop, and results in his being shot in the back, you know it's time for a change.
2
........or a rational and responsible father/motorist/person who does NOT flee from a crime and child support responsibilities.
Boo Hoo. What about the mother in poverty and more so the children? So then it is all left to the mother? No sir. These men need to learn to keep their pants on. These women need to keep theirs on too if they are not open to abortion. Furthermore, the men in the article can access representation through Legal Aid attorneys. And unlike savvier counterparts who lose jobs, those men continue to pay something while filing the courts for a reevaluation of their child support. The act of paying something sits better with a judge who sees there is an attempt and is more apt to have some measure of compassion vs complete nonpayment which infers lack of responsibility. In the olden days before welfare, if a man "knocked up" a girl, he married her and was obligated to take full responsibility.
5
The level of irresponsible excuse making here reminds me of the postings chiming in to protect the feral cats threatening the piping plovers on a NYC beach. There is no end to the irresponsibility and disconnect when all you risk is a few taps of a keyboard and click of "send."
It can be noted (for the blind here) that Walter Scott was driving a Mercedes Benz that he "had just purchased." Used, sure, whatever. It's still a too-expensive car for a guy who won't pay his bills. It's insulting to have his case used in a story like this.
Irresponsible, breeding adult males need to be held responsible for the good times they have for themselves that cause endless pain for others.
It can be noted (for the blind here) that Walter Scott was driving a Mercedes Benz that he "had just purchased." Used, sure, whatever. It's still a too-expensive car for a guy who won't pay his bills. It's insulting to have his case used in a story like this.
Irresponsible, breeding adult males need to be held responsible for the good times they have for themselves that cause endless pain for others.
5
How do you know anything about the Mercedes he bought? I just walked by one for sale two days ago, price tag $500. Hey -- it was a Mercedes!
1
So let me understand this. If one can afford it, and doesn't pay child support, it's OK if that person goes to jail. That's as "effective/efficient deterrent." If one can't afford it, and doesn't pay child support, it's OK that person not be sent to jail. That's as "ineffective/inefficient deterrent." So by that logic, it incentives poor men to keep breeding multiple children and not worry about paying for/being responsible for them because jail is not an effective/efficient deterrent. That's the stupidest logic I've ever heard...
2
Like most laws in the bank controlled world they don't work, just designed to steal and incarcerate. Hard to imagine that we have gone this far backwards. I wonder where the breaking point will be. Maybe there should be a law against the creators of stupid laws? But then we would need a lot more prisons.
1
From first hand experience the system ruined my life. I still can't afford to get my license back. I have been jailed twice and had to borrow $1000 each time to get out. My kids are since grown but I still pay arrears. I cannot get a passport or collect anything from the IRS. My ex makes a good 6 figure income and due to illness I still have $130 each month deducted from my Social Security check. I can only imagine how much harder this would be if I were not white.
48
The ex-wife is making 100K, and the guy is paying arrears from his tiny social security check.
Why? What children are being supported? None. This is not child support. This is just sadism and torture (largely of men), operated by the US court system.
The "child-support" racket stinks to high heaven--it's an embarrassment--and it's our era's Slavery. But where is Harriet Beecham Stowe? Where is our Abolition Movement? The slave-trade enablers are commenting, anonymously of course, on this thread. They love the idea of making people suffer.
You can read and hear the shrill glee with which many are saying, "These men ought to be crucified.They ought to be castrated. Being shot in the back serves him right."
But they are morons. Why are we letting them have the upper hand? Who's going to step forward and lead the change?
Why? What children are being supported? None. This is not child support. This is just sadism and torture (largely of men), operated by the US court system.
The "child-support" racket stinks to high heaven--it's an embarrassment--and it's our era's Slavery. But where is Harriet Beecham Stowe? Where is our Abolition Movement? The slave-trade enablers are commenting, anonymously of course, on this thread. They love the idea of making people suffer.
You can read and hear the shrill glee with which many are saying, "These men ought to be crucified.They ought to be castrated. Being shot in the back serves him right."
But they are morons. Why are we letting them have the upper hand? Who's going to step forward and lead the change?
1
Sad story, Ron. I would like to hear your ex's side of the story.
Knowing the amounts of money I spent on my two children I cannot see how the child support payments mentioned in this articled would pay the bills. I am not saying that these payments should not be made, but when I think about the clothes, the school supplies, transportation, and those college tuition bills, the children in this article will be missing a lot of necessities.
2
If you are man enough to make a baby, then you had better become man enough to support a baby. You play, you pay. Why should the rest of society get stuck paying for your sexual adventures? There is nothing unfair about requiring men of any color or financial status to pay for what the children they make. Deal with it.
4
Let's stop blaming society for this man's bad behavior. He made foolish choices and we all pay the price. It is time for each of us to take responsibility for our own lives and not blame our country. It is our liberals who perpetuate the notion that it is the government's fault.
2
I could not be more grateful to the New York Times for highlighting this serious issue. As a county attorney who is charged with overseeing these enforcement actions, I can attest to the fact that this system is in serious need of change. The payor, usually a man but not always, gets stuck in a horrible cycle of poverty, destitution and imprisonment. The child support enforcement system is terribly broken, and he simplistic slogan of "dead beat dad" belies the simplistic solution for a serious problem. And just saying you shouldn't have had kids in the first place is likewise insulting and contributes zero to addressing this problem. The answer is realistic support orders, access to job training and employment, and supporting efforts toward joint custody wherever possible.
78
Four Children.. separated..not once allowed to claim one child at the end of the year... but still happy to have my children..they are a blessing....even though it was rough repaying back money owed... and it made me angry.. but seeing them all grown, happy and productive.. was worth it. I can understand how men can feel slighted... 17% for each child regardless of your salary... and has one judge said when asked how am i supposed to live," you figure it out" that would make anyone angry..
2
Why do we always resort to force? Do we really believe that a child who knows that his/her parent went to jail for not paying child support is going to grow up to be happy and productive citizen? No. Before locking up the individual, perhaps we should burden the courts to ensure (prove) that the individual actually has the funds to pay.
1
This reads like the Debtor's Prison of days long gone.
4
Effectively, by imprisoning people for being too poor to pay child support, we are re-instituting the poor houses of Old Europe that the pilgrims and colonists fled from in the 18th century.
Failure to pay child support necessitates government support of children, and so should be collected with tax payments on IRS Income Tax forms.
It is an obligation to your family that other taxpayers have to contribute to if you don't pay.
But no one should be going to jail for this.
Failure to pay child support necessitates government support of children, and so should be collected with tax payments on IRS Income Tax forms.
It is an obligation to your family that other taxpayers have to contribute to if you don't pay.
But no one should be going to jail for this.
3
Is there not a wage garnishment program to collect child support in the US? In Canada those who are not receiving child and spousal support from a former spouse and father can have a court issue a garnishment order to the supporter's employer and the employer deducts an amount from pay that the court determines is fair given the budget of the supporter and recipients needs. Jail is a very costly and counter-productive option for a supporter who is behind in payments. Would it not be better to facilitate a repayment plan that allows the payer to keep working to afford the payments instead of sending that person to jail?
2
Unfortunately New York, for example, practices automatic garnishment, up to 65% of one's wages. If you earn minimum wage, this throws you below the poverty line. There is both a state and federal law supposedly protecting against putting the payer below the poverty line, but the New York enforcement agency regularly does not observe these laws.
Why can't child support be on a completely voluntary basis? If you expect your partner to pay for any potential children, let them sign a treaty where they agree to do so. If they refuse, simply don't get children, or get them knowing you will have to pay for them yourself.
Who knew we still have 18th century debtors' prison? How about an old fashioned workhouse? Our government is so imaginative, and obviously interested in solving our social problems! How could this possibly help struggling families? (OH! And now there could be a death penalty for failing to pay support.)
3
Child support fairness and father's rights topics are difficult discussions because you do have a lot of deadbeat fathers who don't want to pay child support and that's what these laws are really in place for. What's left though is the middle-ground fathers who do pay child support, but face some of the difficulties of the system. It is a very unforgiving and stern system that makes it near impossible to claw your way out of.
If a father loses his job, he is still expected to pay child support throughout. For a short term, perhaps fine, but what about after 6 months? Attempting to adjust this temporarily is usually met with the response that he isn't searching hard enough. It can often take that long to legitimately find a middle class job. If the couple were living together, they'd have to live with less funds for that period. Once a job is found, there is often thousands of dollars to catchup on.
Further is the imputed income. We live in an economy of underemployment, yet these dads are expected to always have full employment. If they made more money when the support order was determined, they must pay that amount forever, even if their wages are less at a new job. Most support orders can't easily be modified. What this ends up being is a situation of more support than is even feasible for an income, and no way to change it.
These situations don't sound fair, but unfortunately child support paying dads are all assumed to be scum who can deal with it.
If a father loses his job, he is still expected to pay child support throughout. For a short term, perhaps fine, but what about after 6 months? Attempting to adjust this temporarily is usually met with the response that he isn't searching hard enough. It can often take that long to legitimately find a middle class job. If the couple were living together, they'd have to live with less funds for that period. Once a job is found, there is often thousands of dollars to catchup on.
Further is the imputed income. We live in an economy of underemployment, yet these dads are expected to always have full employment. If they made more money when the support order was determined, they must pay that amount forever, even if their wages are less at a new job. Most support orders can't easily be modified. What this ends up being is a situation of more support than is even feasible for an income, and no way to change it.
These situations don't sound fair, but unfortunately child support paying dads are all assumed to be scum who can deal with it.
4
An "unforgiving and stern system" in this case is simply a subversion of basic constitutional rights, a "due process" that considers all reasonable factors. If the law was actually followed by the judiciary, there would not be a major problem.
It is wrong to put people in jail for unpaid child support. Garnishing their wages would actually get the money paid back to the state, or to the custodial parent. Also, people shouldn't have kids they can't afford.
2
The child support "industry" - the lawyers, law enforcement personnel, the bureaucracies set up to guarantee either payment or punishment (or both) - is a machine that runs wild because the subject is cold hard cash.
Granted, there are many scofflaws in child support. There are also those that get behind like Mr. Scott and are put in a cycle much akin to debtor's prison of the old days. You can't work to pay it off, and your payments only get higher.
The healthy maturation of the child is overlooked. What good does it do the child to see her father thrown into the legal system? What kind of guilt and shame does that give the child to deal with?
Notice also that there is no system set up to ensure that the children get their healthy time spent with their father. Withholding of visitation rights is a crime of many mothers, and parental alienation is a real psychological issue.
Granted, there are many scofflaws in child support. There are also those that get behind like Mr. Scott and are put in a cycle much akin to debtor's prison of the old days. You can't work to pay it off, and your payments only get higher.
The healthy maturation of the child is overlooked. What good does it do the child to see her father thrown into the legal system? What kind of guilt and shame does that give the child to deal with?
Notice also that there is no system set up to ensure that the children get their healthy time spent with their father. Withholding of visitation rights is a crime of many mothers, and parental alienation is a real psychological issue.
5
The U.S. constitution forbids debtor's prison.
4
The US constitution also forbids"cruel and unusual punishment".....or at least ...at one time it did.
The very folks who argue incarcerating parents owing child support usually focus on young males today, ignoring the hundred thousand or so abandoned American-GI fathered children of foreign sex workers abroad, mixed-race children born to white teenage moms given up for adoption, the foreign born and domestic children, abandoned by American clergy and religious missionaries. The incarceration child non-support law almost seems crafted to conceal its punitive effect on the poor. How did men of good wll let that happen?
1
This problem is not limited to any racial or ethnic group. Can't parents, schools, and churches teach young people real cost of raising children? Why not acheive a stable career first, then a stable marriage, before the baby-making begins? Is that just too old-fashioned? Fifty years ago 5% of births were out of wedlock. Today it is the norm, over 50%. The fact that this is socially acceptable likely contributes to skipping child support. Yes, marriage is expensive, and so is child rearing. If people cannot afford these activiites, why not "keep the baby-maker in the pants" or at least learn how to muzzle it?
1
It is mind-boggling that America has brought back the debtor's prison, which I had assumed fell out of favor way back n Dickensian times. I guess I was wrong. Traffic tickets and falling behind on child support should not land you in jail nor entrap you in an endless cycle of debt. But I guess this is just another example of the 1% class warfare on the poor--the same system that allows predatory payday lenders to charge astronomical interest rates on short-term, small-amount "payday loans."
It should not be a crime to be poor.
I wonder how long it will be until ordinary Americans start rioting in the streets?
It should not be a crime to be poor.
I wonder how long it will be until ordinary Americans start rioting in the streets?
3
No matter what rules are made up, someone will game the rules to their "advantage". It appears that the imputed income rule was made up for two reasons: those who will work only enough for the money they can keep (feeling that working harder for more only lines someone else's pocket); and those who only report non-cash income and keep all the cash income.
The solution to the former is straightforward-- above some number, the worker keeps a percentage of the income until whatever the per unit time ceiling is met. The latter would still, unfortunately, need the stick of tax payer expensive jail time.
The current system is bizarre-- from observing some cases, if your child support was set in a good income year, it is pretty much going to be hopeless for you if your income drops. The courts appear extremely unsympathetic to changes of circumstances despite the fact that if the couple were still together, they would have to endure the loss of income together.
The solution to the former is straightforward-- above some number, the worker keeps a percentage of the income until whatever the per unit time ceiling is met. The latter would still, unfortunately, need the stick of tax payer expensive jail time.
The current system is bizarre-- from observing some cases, if your child support was set in a good income year, it is pretty much going to be hopeless for you if your income drops. The courts appear extremely unsympathetic to changes of circumstances despite the fact that if the couple were still together, they would have to endure the loss of income together.
2
I and my husband are not divorced (and will never be because we can't afford it) and go without luxuries and sleep every day to provide our children with what they need. Not phones, games or other junk but real necessities. Plus, I do their laundry, shop and cook healthy meals for them, take them to the doctor and parent them. It's great but writing a check every month is easy compared to that.
3
It always amazes me when I read articles surrounding child support, the lack of payment from fathers. I lived it as a child and watched this scenario. My mother and father had 5 children. My father finds a younger woman and leaves his family. He is ordered to pay child support, keep his children on his medical insurance provided by his employer, ordered to pay for certain necessities (dental work) for his children. He wouldn't cooperate. He was dragged into court (at my mother's expense) time and again. He lied about overtime pay. He wouldn't sign the medical claim forms so we could have medical attention. He got away with all of this. There was no followup during those days to make sure a man actually paid the child support and provided the necessary medical insurance. That system surely didn't work, it looks like today's system doesn't work either, just putting someone in jail over and over obviously doesn't work. Seems like we would have come up with a better plan. What keeps us from doing that? What is the answer?
61
"What is the answer? "
Well many young men are going on strike or MGTOW. It seems the power brokers will not be happy until western society is full of old people and single barren women. Make, bed, sleep I guess. The elephant in the room is millions of men have are avoiding women.
So glad I stayed single!!!!
Well many young men are going on strike or MGTOW. It seems the power brokers will not be happy until western society is full of old people and single barren women. Make, bed, sleep I guess. The elephant in the room is millions of men have are avoiding women.
So glad I stayed single!!!!
Nothing that I read here surprised me. I paid child support for over 16 years starting in 1990, and if not for some family support I would've probably fallen behind in payment. The support collection system is too draconian, and, as reported, it often only worsens the plight of support payers & usually does nothing to improve support collection. Sensible reforms are badly needed. In my state, about 1997 an outspoken state legislator tried to enact draconian changes in support collection laws, but he was frustrated by representatives of Domestic Relations Courts judges who understood that what he was striving for was foolish.
1
“While every parent has a responsibility to support their kids to the best of their ability, the tools developed in the 1990s are designed for people who have money,” said Vicki Turetsky, the commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. “Jail is appropriate for someone who is actively hiding assets, not appropriate for someone who couldn’t pay the order in the first place.”
-------
No these tools aren't meant for the wealthy. They are meant to oppress the poor and feed our Mass Incarceration Prison Industrial Complex with its exploitation of inmates as cheap labor and tons of political patronage jobs and corporate welfare awarded to special interests and public employee unions in the process. They are a really ugly attempt to use legal tricks and legal maneuvering to reinstitute slavery in all but name as it was before the civil war. The system is designed to "fail" -- but you have got to get that it isn't failing in the eyes of all those who are able to enrich their pocketbooks off the backs of others.
-------
No these tools aren't meant for the wealthy. They are meant to oppress the poor and feed our Mass Incarceration Prison Industrial Complex with its exploitation of inmates as cheap labor and tons of political patronage jobs and corporate welfare awarded to special interests and public employee unions in the process. They are a really ugly attempt to use legal tricks and legal maneuvering to reinstitute slavery in all but name as it was before the civil war. The system is designed to "fail" -- but you have got to get that it isn't failing in the eyes of all those who are able to enrich their pocketbooks off the backs of others.
1
This story seems to have had the narrative created, then filled in with research to back up the story line. There is no mention of anyone from any court or welfare department having been interviewed. There are plenty of avenues for unemployed or otherwise impoverished parents to follow to avoid jail, but they do have to make some effort, such as showing up for appointments. This article actually patronizes low-income people, implying they are not capable of taking responsibility for their actions.
2
" There are plenty of avenues for unemployed or otherwise impoverished parents to follow to avoid jail..."
The avenue is getting a job, and there are none.
For the record, those who wonder about people who have stopped looking for work, and wonder why. It's very simple. How many times can you keep banging on the same doors? Let's say you're down to looking for restuarant work, a waiter's job, say. You go by that establishment once, say hello to someone, hand them your resume. At the most you can go back to that restaurant one more time, give them the "I happened to be in the area so I thought I'd drop in" line. But if you go a third time, you have established yourself to everyone who works there as an unhirable weirdo. In fact, the way things are, you really have only one chance to land that restaurant gig -- by happening to drop by the very day (hour!) another worker has given his two weeks notice. That's it.
You keep walking down those same streets, looking for work, and everybody is looking through their windows thinking (or saying) "There goes that loser again, still trying to find work."
You try it.
The avenue is getting a job, and there are none.
For the record, those who wonder about people who have stopped looking for work, and wonder why. It's very simple. How many times can you keep banging on the same doors? Let's say you're down to looking for restuarant work, a waiter's job, say. You go by that establishment once, say hello to someone, hand them your resume. At the most you can go back to that restaurant one more time, give them the "I happened to be in the area so I thought I'd drop in" line. But if you go a third time, you have established yourself to everyone who works there as an unhirable weirdo. In fact, the way things are, you really have only one chance to land that restaurant gig -- by happening to drop by the very day (hour!) another worker has given his two weeks notice. That's it.
You keep walking down those same streets, looking for work, and everybody is looking through their windows thinking (or saying) "There goes that loser again, still trying to find work."
You try it.
Pity the poor children to have been given parents like these depicted in the article especially those born out of wedlock. What will become of them? Will they repeat the sins of the parents or will they be lucky and not make the same mistakes. Society pays the price both figuratively and literally. Our country is spirally downward and the children suffer.
Correction - Our country is spiraling downward and the children suffer.
I had a female friend in the late 90's who's son's father got primary custody (4 days of the week) because the guy lived with his mother, who provided housing and free childcare.
He had some college education and lots of family support, but earned slightly less than she did on the books, and thus was able to collect substantial support payments from her.
She was alone in NYC, with only a high school diploma and a poor family who lived in Utah, and she was able to (after spending a substantial amount of money on a lawyer) have her support payments changed when the judge understood that she did not have the family support that had enabled her ex to get custody in the first place.
It's sad that women nowadays want to have children alone through fertility treatments, but when I see stuff like what happened to my friend, I get it. It would be too sad to go through what she went through and not get to see your child that much on top of everything.
The system is hardest on those who have the least resources, and legally favors the parent who has the most. Despite its pretense at making things equitable, the point is mostly to punish poor people for having any children at all, in or out of wedlock, with or without any kind of consensual partnership.
He had some college education and lots of family support, but earned slightly less than she did on the books, and thus was able to collect substantial support payments from her.
She was alone in NYC, with only a high school diploma and a poor family who lived in Utah, and she was able to (after spending a substantial amount of money on a lawyer) have her support payments changed when the judge understood that she did not have the family support that had enabled her ex to get custody in the first place.
It's sad that women nowadays want to have children alone through fertility treatments, but when I see stuff like what happened to my friend, I get it. It would be too sad to go through what she went through and not get to see your child that much on top of everything.
The system is hardest on those who have the least resources, and legally favors the parent who has the most. Despite its pretense at making things equitable, the point is mostly to punish poor people for having any children at all, in or out of wedlock, with or without any kind of consensual partnership.
1
"The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay."
No, it begins much earlier than that. It begins within lower socioeconomic brackets, where there needs to be free access to contraceptives. Truth is, if you have a child, it becomes your responsibility. Per usual, anyway you spin it, Mr. Scott made a decision - he lived with the consequences of his poor decision of having an unwed child and being a deadbeat dead, no matter how you try to humanize it. He lost his job due to his poor decision making; it is not anyone else's fault. Maybe we need to provide better guidance at a younger age to those who lack the framework to make rationale decisions, such as being sexually open may have life long repercussions.
Should the court crush him with debt? No. Could he had avoided the entire situation? Absolutely.
No, it begins much earlier than that. It begins within lower socioeconomic brackets, where there needs to be free access to contraceptives. Truth is, if you have a child, it becomes your responsibility. Per usual, anyway you spin it, Mr. Scott made a decision - he lived with the consequences of his poor decision of having an unwed child and being a deadbeat dead, no matter how you try to humanize it. He lost his job due to his poor decision making; it is not anyone else's fault. Maybe we need to provide better guidance at a younger age to those who lack the framework to make rationale decisions, such as being sexually open may have life long repercussions.
Should the court crush him with debt? No. Could he had avoided the entire situation? Absolutely.
3
Seems like its working as intended.
Poor people (particularly ones who were unfortunate enough to have brown skin) are supposed to be slaves in America right?
We can't outright say that, so we'll just throw them in jail for minor offenses and destroy any possibility of them ever having a productive life.
Poor people (particularly ones who were unfortunate enough to have brown skin) are supposed to be slaves in America right?
We can't outright say that, so we'll just throw them in jail for minor offenses and destroy any possibility of them ever having a productive life.
2
Non custodial parents shouldn't have to pay child support--much less alimony.
Read the book "True Freedom - The Road to the First Real Democracy" where a more logical approach to jail sentencing is laid out. A non- violent person can still keep their job while staying in jail but would have to work even more in after hours to pay for their jail time.
I'm always amazed by the number of single women with children who depend on govt. support to live on. It seems to me that we're paying people to sit home and have children. My parents divorced when I was seven and my father never paid a cent in child support. My mother worked a minimum wage job and managed to provide for the two of us until I was grown. She did it without any govt. assistance. My father was a good provider while they were married but had emotional issues from a war injury and once single never managed to make more money than it took to take care of himself. I think it would be more useful to require all parents to work or face jail time and for mothers as well as fathers to be responsible for supporting their kids as they hold as much responsibility in having those kids.
8
Harold: Suppose your loving mom had fallen short for some time. I don't know if you'd have been happy to see her jailed. Please try to step in the shoes of others.
i'm reading The Divide, by Matt Taibi right now that directly addresses this issue and ones like it. The welfare system, the shaming of those in it, and the criminalization of poverty are really making people lives hard. Even glancing at the comments here from fellow privileged white people just proves his point about a lack of empathy in our society. Sad times.
4
“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
And that's how these "Judges" treat all of us - if you are the vulnerable person with children in American "divorces" you will find yourself more victimized by sham courts with elected sham judges and fake lawyers. In Manhattan Supreme Court there is not even proof of what has occurred - NO AUDIO NO VIDEO NO COURT REPORTERS….NO TRANSCRIPTS…I say "NO LITIGATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". Children should be protected. It's not rocket science. Those of us who have appeared before these "judges" have been told by our own lawyers "The judge doesn't like your kind"…that's a quote. I, too, who had NO LAWYER was threatened with arrest by my spouse's lawyer, who ended up, by default (Rigged) being "my" lawyer. There is no place in a real democracy for this court fraud. There is no future for our children with these kangaroo courts.
And that's how these "Judges" treat all of us - if you are the vulnerable person with children in American "divorces" you will find yourself more victimized by sham courts with elected sham judges and fake lawyers. In Manhattan Supreme Court there is not even proof of what has occurred - NO AUDIO NO VIDEO NO COURT REPORTERS….NO TRANSCRIPTS…I say "NO LITIGATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION". Children should be protected. It's not rocket science. Those of us who have appeared before these "judges" have been told by our own lawyers "The judge doesn't like your kind"…that's a quote. I, too, who had NO LAWYER was threatened with arrest by my spouse's lawyer, who ended up, by default (Rigged) being "my" lawyer. There is no place in a real democracy for this court fraud. There is no future for our children with these kangaroo courts.
5
The 90's shame and incarceration was for a reason. Too many fathers will not pay child support unless forced to. Watch "Dateline", and you'll also see that an inordinate amount of fathers would rather kill than pay child and alimony support.
Of the four divorced couples, I can think of off the top of my head, all have one thing in common: the ex-husbands are not making child support payments or paying too little by either hiding their money with family or are working under the table, to avoid making these payments. The amount of stress created on the wives and children is incalculable. Because these ex-husbands range from middle-class to wealthy, incarceration would have stopped all of this misery in it's tracks. A drug test would also show they can afford recreational drugs. I think a private detective would show a majority of these cases are not so innocent.
Of the four divorced couples, I can think of off the top of my head, all have one thing in common: the ex-husbands are not making child support payments or paying too little by either hiding their money with family or are working under the table, to avoid making these payments. The amount of stress created on the wives and children is incalculable. Because these ex-husbands range from middle-class to wealthy, incarceration would have stopped all of this misery in it's tracks. A drug test would also show they can afford recreational drugs. I think a private detective would show a majority of these cases are not so innocent.
1
To all those bleeding hearts:
Abortion remains legal, in most states if not all. Secondly, condoms are cheap, affordable, if not free at Planned Parenthood as is free birth control for the poor. Finally, the poor have access to Legal Aid attorneys.
No excuses.
Abortion remains legal, in most states if not all. Secondly, condoms are cheap, affordable, if not free at Planned Parenthood as is free birth control for the poor. Finally, the poor have access to Legal Aid attorneys.
No excuses.
6
I have a friend who was a construction worker for many years making a really good living. He became a 9/11 responder along with many other construction workers, and after 8 months retrieving body parts 19 hours a day/7 days a week was suffering from asthma and PTSD. Long story short, his marriage broke up (2 kids), he was denied disability in 2003, and ended up living on the streets for 10 years with panhandling his only income. He would occasionally have Medicaid and food stamps, but they would be terminated at the drop of a hat (thanks HRA - the Horror Resources Administration!) so he got all his health care at emergency rooms.
Three years ago he was thrown in jail for 6 months for nonpayment of child support by the deranged judge in Family Court who had been handling his case for years. She told him his health problems were not her concern and if he couldn't pay he should collect cans. His health continued to deteriorate. He got a bone infection from frostbite, which was misdiagnosed at one emergency room so it went untreated for months and spread. A year and a half ago, the day he was scheduled to have surgery at another hospital to amputate his foot the judge demanded that he appear before her or she would send sheriff deputies to pick him up. He had to sign himself out of the hospital and forego the surgery.
(To be continued...)
Three years ago he was thrown in jail for 6 months for nonpayment of child support by the deranged judge in Family Court who had been handling his case for years. She told him his health problems were not her concern and if he couldn't pay he should collect cans. His health continued to deteriorate. He got a bone infection from frostbite, which was misdiagnosed at one emergency room so it went untreated for months and spread. A year and a half ago, the day he was scheduled to have surgery at another hospital to amputate his foot the judge demanded that he appear before her or she would send sheriff deputies to pick him up. He had to sign himself out of the hospital and forego the surgery.
(To be continued...)
6
Heartbreaking. :(
To finish the story of my friend:
A year ago he finally got Medicaid and is now being treated at Bellevue by 10 doctors. Unfortunately for him and for me, the managed care company he was assigned (MetroPlus) has refused to pay for his medications and tests so I've been paying for all of them out of my retirement fund.
He he not been denied disability in 2003 and subsequently (as has been the experience of many 9/11 responders) he would have had Medicare and probably wouldn't have wound up living on the streets. Had the deranged and predatory judge from Family Court upstate not constantly threatened him with prison after the first jail stint of 6 months he would have had the surgery he needed.
He is slated to have that surgery next week at Bellevue. The infection has now spread throughout his body. I don't know if he's going to survive.
A year ago he finally got Medicaid and is now being treated at Bellevue by 10 doctors. Unfortunately for him and for me, the managed care company he was assigned (MetroPlus) has refused to pay for his medications and tests so I've been paying for all of them out of my retirement fund.
He he not been denied disability in 2003 and subsequently (as has been the experience of many 9/11 responders) he would have had Medicare and probably wouldn't have wound up living on the streets. Had the deranged and predatory judge from Family Court upstate not constantly threatened him with prison after the first jail stint of 6 months he would have had the surgery he needed.
He is slated to have that surgery next week at Bellevue. The infection has now spread throughout his body. I don't know if he's going to survive.
1
The child support system is just as draconian and biased when the mother has to pay. When my marriage failed three of my children were under 18, two just by a few years and one very young. I worked a second job in addition to my full time job to pay and still fell behind. Only thing that saved me is when my ex went to a lawyer and wrote up an agreement that he's support the two who were months from graduating high school, provided I agreed to take full custody of my then 8 year old son with no child support to be claimed by me. Since the courts had by then threatened to take my driver's license and I feared losing my full time job, I agreed.
Years later when a social worker heard of this situation, she told me to sue my ex for child support. I recall telling her that "I would not put Saddam Hussein through the family court system in PA."
Years later when a social worker heard of this situation, she told me to sue my ex for child support. I recall telling her that "I would not put Saddam Hussein through the family court system in PA."
5
Our "child support" system is a barbarous, outdated way to see that children are cared for with financial support from a parent. In my decades of working with families I realized that "child support" is a great way to keep fathers, and sometimes mothers, from having contact with his or her child. Additionally, outrageous fees are charged for a simple bureaucratic function that inflate the actual amount of the payments. If paid, the child ends up receiving a fraction of the money that the parent actually paid. If the parent provides money directly to the child, he or she can still wind up in jail. I'd like to think that we can do better than this but I doubt it.
8
I thought putting people in jail for debts was illegal (unconstitutional?) Garnish their wages; don't cause them to lose their jobs.
6
I had a female friend in the late 90's who's son's father got primary custody (4 days of the week) because the guy lived with his mother, who provided housing and free childcare.
He had some college education and lots of family support, but earned slightly less than she did on the books, and thus was able to collect substantial support payments from her.
She was alone in NYC, with only a high school diploma and a poor family who lived in Utah, and she was able to (after spending a substantial amount of money on a lawyer) have her support payments changed when the judge understood that she did not have the family support that had enabled her ex to get custody in the first place.
It's sad that women nowadays want to have children alone through fertility treatments, but when I see stuff like what happened to my friend, I get it. It would be too sad to go through what she went through and not get to see your get that much on top of everything.
The system is hardest on those who have the least resources, and legally favors the parent who has the most. Despite its pretense at making things equitable, the point is mostly to punish poor people for having any children at all, in or out of wedlock, with or without any kind of consensual partnership.
He had some college education and lots of family support, but earned slightly less than she did on the books, and thus was able to collect substantial support payments from her.
She was alone in NYC, with only a high school diploma and a poor family who lived in Utah, and she was able to (after spending a substantial amount of money on a lawyer) have her support payments changed when the judge understood that she did not have the family support that had enabled her ex to get custody in the first place.
It's sad that women nowadays want to have children alone through fertility treatments, but when I see stuff like what happened to my friend, I get it. It would be too sad to go through what she went through and not get to see your get that much on top of everything.
The system is hardest on those who have the least resources, and legally favors the parent who has the most. Despite its pretense at making things equitable, the point is mostly to punish poor people for having any children at all, in or out of wedlock, with or without any kind of consensual partnership.
1
Child support has become a criminal justice matter and it seems that Black men are unfairly targeted. White men appear to occasionally get caught up in this dragnet but not often. Most of us would reasonably agree that locking someone up in prison for non payment of child support is counter productive and further exacerbates the problems of child and family poverty we are ostensibly attempting to solve. Here in the urban centers of Maryland we had a problem with poor Black men serially impregnating and abandoning women. We even had a Congressman who served here that had five children by four different women.I think jail should be reserved for the most outrageous cases of abandonment and neglect.A balance must be struck between what is needed,what the law is and what the absent parent can actually provide.
1
The rich who have access to the printing press, the goose that lays the old eggs thus the center where the culture is created , hold their nose high in the air when they look at the great sins of the poor but what they do not see if they are looking at themselves a mirror like most monkeys they reject as a stranger while the poor in spirit lives in poverty conditions ,spiritual abandonment, as the rich in power murder the spirit of the poor ,murder their soul and murder the babies in the tender bellies of their mommies
Luke 15
"27"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment."
So the rich in the afterlife look at the poverty condition of their own forsaken souls in the mirror and are thrown in the worse poverty conditions ever seen in order to understand the stink that they held their nose to while in possession of the goose that lays the golden eggs only for their own children with a GREAT cures upon their heads
It would be great mercy to send a great drought to the west ,a great tsunami to the east and a great ice age from the north warn the families of the rich but they would just become the chief criminals in the world and the rising tide of the poor would devour them
What to do?
Luke 15
"27"And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- 28for I have five brothers-- in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment."
So the rich in the afterlife look at the poverty condition of their own forsaken souls in the mirror and are thrown in the worse poverty conditions ever seen in order to understand the stink that they held their nose to while in possession of the goose that lays the golden eggs only for their own children with a GREAT cures upon their heads
It would be great mercy to send a great drought to the west ,a great tsunami to the east and a great ice age from the north warn the families of the rich but they would just become the chief criminals in the world and the rising tide of the poor would devour them
What to do?
1
When my sister divorced her husband in Suffolk County, NY, her husband was ordered to pay child support for their two daughters. He paid on time every month, but it had to be paid to the county agency rather than directly to my sister. After taking one-third of the money off the top for "administrative fees" a check was then sent to my sister. She also had to give her husband $10,000 for his share of the house that she bought and paid for before they were married. Her husband had a slick lawyer who somehow convinced the idiotic family court job to force my sister into making her ex the beneficiary of her life insurance that she had for her daughters. She was so angry she cancelled the policy and was found guilty of contempt of court. She was a school teacher who had to go back to waitressing on weekends to make ends meet. Her husband was a physicist who made more money than she. Plenty of men get screwed by the system, but plenty of women and children do too.
3
Get a better lawyer next time.
There's something to be said for the old saw: Why is divorce so expensive? Because it's worth it.
Without knowing all the particulars, it sounds as if your sister believed that finances are separate matters even after wedding vows are made. They are not. Ten grand isn't a lot of money considering what a house is worth. I'm imagining that he contributed toward property taxes, maintenance and upkeep, etc., so, yeah, he deserved a piece of that pie. Life insurance is generally free for most school teachers, so if your sister wasn't paying premiums, or not paying much in the way of premiums (which is pretty standard for working-age folks who don't smoke and have no significant health issues), what did she really give up? If she wants her daughters to be beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, the answer is simple: Buy another life insurance policy. Canceling a policy because she's angry in face of a court order otherwise is foolish and a poor example for her children. When a judge tells you to do something, you do it, unless or until the judge changes the order or is overruled by another judge. Pretty simple.
Again, we don't know all the particulars of the case, and it's a pretty safe bet that your sister's ex would present a much different picture than we have here. There are consequences for everything in life, including marriage, which always comes with risk. Don't enter the casino if you can't afford to lose.
There's something to be said for the old saw: Why is divorce so expensive? Because it's worth it.
Without knowing all the particulars, it sounds as if your sister believed that finances are separate matters even after wedding vows are made. They are not. Ten grand isn't a lot of money considering what a house is worth. I'm imagining that he contributed toward property taxes, maintenance and upkeep, etc., so, yeah, he deserved a piece of that pie. Life insurance is generally free for most school teachers, so if your sister wasn't paying premiums, or not paying much in the way of premiums (which is pretty standard for working-age folks who don't smoke and have no significant health issues), what did she really give up? If she wants her daughters to be beneficiaries of a life insurance policy, the answer is simple: Buy another life insurance policy. Canceling a policy because she's angry in face of a court order otherwise is foolish and a poor example for her children. When a judge tells you to do something, you do it, unless or until the judge changes the order or is overruled by another judge. Pretty simple.
Again, we don't know all the particulars of the case, and it's a pretty safe bet that your sister's ex would present a much different picture than we have here. There are consequences for everything in life, including marriage, which always comes with risk. Don't enter the casino if you can't afford to lose.
Condoms are much cheaper than child support. Don't father a child your can't properly support and provide for.
9
Jailing the poor for whatever reason is just a means of keeping those privatized prisons full and their corporate owners fat and happy.
This is part of a larger scheme in which poor families suffer the most. This is America. So what else is new?
This is part of a larger scheme in which poor families suffer the most. This is America. So what else is new?
9
It is easy to point to the downward spiral of the poorest people who get caught in the toilet of America's cruel Family Courts. Instead of helping them up, the Court pushes them ever further down. But, it is wrong to imply that these Courts are any less cruel and more sane to wealthier people. True, wealthy dad don't end up in jail, but that is not because they can hire better lawyers. It's because they have enough assets that the pirahnas of the Family Court can feast on them without killing the host. Wealthy men can pay more than they earn, and for many years and "relief" is a only a remote theory. Some of these men end up, not incarcerated, but institutionalized in mental health facilities. The Family Courts violate our most cherished laws and are an embarassment to our nation.
I live in Germany where such atrocities are rare. Under the German constitution, everyone is entitled to a life with decency and such cruel family court orders would never be enforced. Besides this, divorce laws are more in sync with the modern social welfare state, and rules are codified so that everyone knows what will happen. It does not matter how good your lawyer is. And, the Court is not turned into a circus, like in many US states.
I live in Germany where such atrocities are rare. Under the German constitution, everyone is entitled to a life with decency and such cruel family court orders would never be enforced. Besides this, divorce laws are more in sync with the modern social welfare state, and rules are codified so that everyone knows what will happen. It does not matter how good your lawyer is. And, the Court is not turned into a circus, like in many US states.
9
The entire idea of debtors' prison is (as many have said here) repugnant. We as a society really do need to figure something out about supporting the entire family ... making sure there is work available for the non-custodial parent is an integral part of that.
However, some of the people commenting here are complaining about not being able to provide a better life for their second set of children because they have to pay for the first. If you can't afford these children (or can't afford to provide for them as you would like), be up front with the next person you are dating before entering into another marriage and bringing those children into the world. Having a family is not something you get "do over's" on. You don't get to divorce your first set of children. Maybe you should have thought harder before having them.
You're just muddying the issue, which should be about how we need to help people out of poverty and stop punishing them.
However, some of the people commenting here are complaining about not being able to provide a better life for their second set of children because they have to pay for the first. If you can't afford these children (or can't afford to provide for them as you would like), be up front with the next person you are dating before entering into another marriage and bringing those children into the world. Having a family is not something you get "do over's" on. You don't get to divorce your first set of children. Maybe you should have thought harder before having them.
You're just muddying the issue, which should be about how we need to help people out of poverty and stop punishing them.
56
Inmates and dead men don't pay child support at all. How smart is that?
12
The idea is supposed to be a deterrent for men who can afford to pay and don't, but it's being misused.
This also carries over to the banking system. Those who are behind are forced to use cash checking and other schemes to avoid banks since banks will seize their assets. This further perpetuates the problem because those $10 in check cashing fees would be much better spent putting food on the table for the kids.
3
I'm probably missing something here, but what about garnishment? If people like Mr. Scott and Mr. Holmes have jobs, then garnish their wages and let them stay employed. The custodial parent (or the welfare system) may or may not be able to get 100 percent of what is owed--the non-custodial parent has to have something left to live on--but it is foolish to throw someone into jail and the unemployment line simultaneously. As for imputing income, that may have made sense in the rah-rah economy of the 1990s, but it doesn't seem to have as much allure today, when we have Phd's working at McDonalds.
12
Some states do garnish wages if you owe a certain amount in child support or if there is a court order in place. The problem, I think, is that you have to report where you work to the state and they have to keep track of you. If they don't, or you hide your income, or work under the table, then you can go into arrears.
Note that this article is all secondhand information from relatives of the deceased. If the NYT had actually checked court records, quite a different story may have emerged on the child support issue. As you noted, if he was working, a portion should have been garnished for child support. However, if Mr. Scott failed to inform the court of his new employment and continued to fail to pay child support, that may have resulted in a bench warrant.
How about garnishment? When the bookkeeper gossips to a friend who gossips to the boss and it becomes known that wages are being garnished, the worker is very likely to be fired for poor performance at the next review. It accomplishes only slightly less than debtor's prison in perpetuating the vicious circling that the prison-owning sharks feed upon.
Aren't there funds available from a foundation run by the pro-life people to help out the poor and downtrodden in their time of need? What? There isn't such a foundation? I'm shocked!
8
I think you are talking about churches, and indeed, these "foundations" are all around and doing as much as they can. Have you contributed to one recently?
1
1
My deadbeat father was a lawyer, a rep from the Irish section of Lowell Mass for 30 years, chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Mass House, and a District Court Judge - Connie Kiernan.
He had every means, and did nothing. It's not just poor minority men.
He had every means, and did nothing. It's not just poor minority men.
14
Your father knew the right people to make his responsibility go away. He'll get his comeuppance at the pearly gates.
I'd rather he'd received it here and at the time.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
2
Simplistic ideologies don't further any dialogue on any subject.
Being poor and having children you have difficulty supporting is not a crime.Most of the absent parents spotlighted in this article were making the effort.America is a cruel place for poor men and for the children of poor men.
The judge who said, in effect, "Your survival is your problem, not ours" is not a rare exception. Ask the Fathers and Families organization in Boston.
Child support is significantly a racket, close to extortion sometimes. No wonder judges are sadistic toward the men. Their consciences hurt. They know they are sending men into an underworld that can include suicide. They make cruel comments to feel better. It’s a good guess that “Your survival is your problem” will be said 100 times today in American courtrooms.
I know two men who committed suicide over family court decisions. One loving and thoughtful father had all his money taken away--he stabbed himself in the heart. His sister got in touch with me, and I interviewed her and the rest of the family. (I wrote an investigative piece about him, but could not get it published, even in the alternative press. I still have the piece.) This man lived in New Bedford, was an Army vet. When he told the judge "I'm not going to be able to live" and the judge said "That's your problem" he ended up dead.
Judge comments like that happen all the time--when you think about it, you can see why. These judges have to violate their consciences to hold on to their jobs. Some become bitter and sadistic, and they take their anger out on fathers, because if they reasonably protected a father's well-being, they might well get attacked by "advocates for women" who would get them fired. And how would they pay their own child support then?
Child support is significantly a racket, close to extortion sometimes. No wonder judges are sadistic toward the men. Their consciences hurt. They know they are sending men into an underworld that can include suicide. They make cruel comments to feel better. It’s a good guess that “Your survival is your problem” will be said 100 times today in American courtrooms.
I know two men who committed suicide over family court decisions. One loving and thoughtful father had all his money taken away--he stabbed himself in the heart. His sister got in touch with me, and I interviewed her and the rest of the family. (I wrote an investigative piece about him, but could not get it published, even in the alternative press. I still have the piece.) This man lived in New Bedford, was an Army vet. When he told the judge "I'm not going to be able to live" and the judge said "That's your problem" he ended up dead.
Judge comments like that happen all the time--when you think about it, you can see why. These judges have to violate their consciences to hold on to their jobs. Some become bitter and sadistic, and they take their anger out on fathers, because if they reasonably protected a father's well-being, they might well get attacked by "advocates for women" who would get them fired. And how would they pay their own child support then?
10
Dickens would love this practice -- to write about. It is too Dickensian to be true in this day and age.
2
If women are the ONLY people with procreation rights, they shouldn't have legal recourse against men who didn't want to be a parent, or can't afford to be a parent. You shouldn't have it both ways.
I'm not saying men shouldn't pay child support but the situation is entirely to complicated for the government to handle.
Women abuse the system. Thats a fact not an opinion.
The government demands more then what most men can afford.
We need to cut the program immediately. It's a colossal waist of tax payer dollars.
We need less reasons to incarcerate US citizens, not more.
I'm not saying men shouldn't pay child support but the situation is entirely to complicated for the government to handle.
Women abuse the system. Thats a fact not an opinion.
The government demands more then what most men can afford.
We need to cut the program immediately. It's a colossal waist of tax payer dollars.
We need less reasons to incarcerate US citizens, not more.
3
"If women are the ONLY people with procreation rights..."
Every man has the right to a vasectomy, the right to use a condom, the right to refuse sex. The only right women have that men don't is the right to an abortion, and if men could get pregnant they'd have that too.
Every man has the right to a vasectomy, the right to use a condom, the right to refuse sex. The only right women have that men don't is the right to an abortion, and if men could get pregnant they'd have that too.
Women are not the only people with procreation rights. Men have procreation rights, too - if they don't want to have children, they can refrain from sexual activity or choose to use condoms, just like women can. The only right they don't have is the right to force an abortion, but that is about bodily integrity and not about procreation. Nobody can force anyone to do something with their body they don't want to.
But if men do have children, they should support those children. And so should women, if the man is the custodial parent. There are, of course, some women who abuse the system - just like there are some men who abuse the system. Some men do have to pay more than they can afford and some men pay less than they can afford. It really depends on the state and the individual circumstances.
But if men do have children, they should support those children. And so should women, if the man is the custodial parent. There are, of course, some women who abuse the system - just like there are some men who abuse the system. Some men do have to pay more than they can afford and some men pay less than they can afford. It really depends on the state and the individual circumstances.
During the time window when it's legal for women to abort, men should have the right to opt out of parenthood and loose all rights and duties associated with the child. (Financial Abortion)
I have very little sympathy. My dad was supposed to pay about $700/month back in the mid-90s. Instead of the solid middle-class upbringing I was used to, we ended up going to food pantries and were under the constant threat of one of the utilities being turned off. My mom worked, but $8.75/hr as a School Media Clerk just didn't go that far, even in 1997. My Dad eventually got the amount taken down to $400/month, which as an adult with a child I find ludicrous. He was making $40k, owned his house and owned his vehicle. It was just hard to maintain his new woman and his child at the same time.
4
It would be hard for most of us to pay 700 bucks a month today much less back in the 90's
1
Why didn't Mom find a new partner as Dad did? And lessen the financial burden, too, aside from the socialization aspect.
@Nick. Thank you for sharing this. This NYT article is very one-sided.
If relaxed efforts to collect child support bring in less revenue, who makes up the difference to feed, clothe, and house poor children. The taxpayer?
Some of my tax money goes to programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, free school lunches, and other expenditures that would be less necessary if more father were married to the mothers of their children and helping support them. The IRS will put me in jail if I refuse to pay my taxes.
You should not punish people more harshly for not supporting other people's children than for not supporting their own children.
Some of my tax money goes to programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, free school lunches, and other expenditures that would be less necessary if more father were married to the mothers of their children and helping support them. The IRS will put me in jail if I refuse to pay my taxes.
You should not punish people more harshly for not supporting other people's children than for not supporting their own children.
6
I'm sorry. This article portrays the deadbeat as a victim. My kids dad owes 55k and has never been in jail. Where I live, you have to go 9 whole months before a single (even partial) payment is made, before the courts bring you back in for a job seek order. Come on...he owes 55K! Never been in jail! ((not for non payment of child support, anyway.) This is a man who made 120 k the year we divorced, over 10 years ago. What a joke. Doubt feel sorry for these men who make babies then complain that child support ruins their life. Talk to the custodial parents who struggle to feed their kids, make too much for any assistance, yet too little to make it without going without basic necessities.
3
So it's 10 years ago, something tells me the 120 is pretax, and a decade later you STILL want cash from the guy, this is why men are terrified of the court system,
I have to tentatively agree. I do think that some - maybe a minority - of these men are victims of a vicious cycle. But let's face it: the reason why the child support system has these punishments in place is because for years non-custodial parents could get away with not paying child support for months or years. And the system is still that way in some places - these are extreme cases, but where are the statistics for what percent of NCP actually end up serving jail time for being in arrears? And what's the average amount that they are in arrears before they go to jail?
Why do you think you have a right to other people's money? Has the father ever signed a contract saying he would pay that much to you?
Supporting children should be on a completely valuntary basis. If you expect the other parent to pay child support after the end of your relationship then you should have them sign a contract before you get children.
Supporting children should be on a completely valuntary basis. If you expect the other parent to pay child support after the end of your relationship then you should have them sign a contract before you get children.
Two other comments if I could:
Another HUGE problem is that when you go to child custody support hearings you are DOOMED if you show up without a lawyer. Because in the eyes of the judge that's dissing the system. So you're supposed to pay a lawyer to say what you could say yourself (there are no jobs; I have no money; here are the names of the restaurants and painting crews I have contacted over the last month), costing you at least a couple months' child support payments -- the very payments that could keep you out of jail. (I am not including the cost of an airline flight to the hearing if the father now lives out of state, something which itself could be very easily done without having to appear in court, without having to hire a lawyer.)
And point two: three times in two weeks while sitting in a cafe I heard a girl tell a friend how her father was being skewered by child support services. "You wouldn't believe what they're doing to my father" was the gist of all three overheard conversations.
Another HUGE problem is that when you go to child custody support hearings you are DOOMED if you show up without a lawyer. Because in the eyes of the judge that's dissing the system. So you're supposed to pay a lawyer to say what you could say yourself (there are no jobs; I have no money; here are the names of the restaurants and painting crews I have contacted over the last month), costing you at least a couple months' child support payments -- the very payments that could keep you out of jail. (I am not including the cost of an airline flight to the hearing if the father now lives out of state, something which itself could be very easily done without having to appear in court, without having to hire a lawyer.)
And point two: three times in two weeks while sitting in a cafe I heard a girl tell a friend how her father was being skewered by child support services. "You wouldn't believe what they're doing to my father" was the gist of all three overheard conversations.
2
Deadbeats are deadbeats, especially when they are deadbeat parents. The biggest social problem in America today is people having children either out of wedlock, or children that they cannot afford to support. No amount of punishment is severe enough for this type of criminal irresponsibility. Throw the book at them, and make them pay.
7
How do they pay if they are sent to jail for being too poor? Policies based on spite over logic are doomed to fail.
Except we know that punishment doesn't prevent it from happening.
And society suffers.
Why do you think these people are deadbeats? Half of them grew up with their fathers in prison. How will throwing them in prison so the cycle can repeat help anything?
Welcome to a modern understanding of social science.
And society suffers.
Why do you think these people are deadbeats? Half of them grew up with their fathers in prison. How will throwing them in prison so the cycle can repeat help anything?
Welcome to a modern understanding of social science.
The key word in this story is "imputed". That word should be banished from our legal system for all time.
2
Agreed. It works in both directions, by the way. My stepdaughter is a single mom with 3 kids, who works full time but receives some public assistance. Although she has never received any child support, her benefits are reduced based on the amount the deadbeat is supposed to be paying her. It still counts as income for her. Seriously? Her oldest is 11, and she's received nothing. The amount she's owed is over $70k by now. If he hasn't paid by now, he never will!
The fact is, your employer ought to fire you for missing child support to begin with, and the tragedy is that the "repeat" aspect is "Repeat Irresponsible Reproduction."
1
Humans respond to rewards and incentives just like any other animal. When the state passes laws that provide an economic incentive to some females or some males to raise children then those humans will choose that course of action if the economic benefit of raising children exceeds the opportunity cost of doing so. The only solution, therefore, is to remove the economic incentive to raise children. Currently, child payments from the state/non-custodial parent go to the custodial parent who is usually the mother.
To remove the economic incentive to the custodial parent, instead, the state needs to provide free childcare/schooling plus health care to the infant/child 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, plus free meals for each child plus a set of clothing and a change. To complete the picture, ideally, if the parent can't provide suitable accommodation then the state also provides that to the child - but to the child alone, not to the child and the parent.
The above strategy is the only way to remove the current economic incentive currently provided by all western countries for custodial parents to raise children.
To remove the economic incentive to the custodial parent, instead, the state needs to provide free childcare/schooling plus health care to the infant/child 24-hours a day, 7 days a week, plus free meals for each child plus a set of clothing and a change. To complete the picture, ideally, if the parent can't provide suitable accommodation then the state also provides that to the child - but to the child alone, not to the child and the parent.
The above strategy is the only way to remove the current economic incentive currently provided by all western countries for custodial parents to raise children.
2
There is much talk about the "exceptional" nature of our nation. This talk is a way of obfuscating the fact that we do some exceptionally stupid things. The justice system in the US is a case in point. While there are certainly many aspects of the system which are indeed admirable, there are so many that are clearly very bad. This is particularly egregious example. It is Dickensian in magnitude. If there remained a place on Earth like the Australia of two hundred years ago, know that our system would send these people there - stored in cargo holds.
3
I'm concerned about the lack of critical thinking that is taking place. If someone is incarcerated for failing to pay child support and loses their job for unexcused absence, who is that benefiting? There is a difference between someone who refuses to pay, and someone who has an inability to pay due to circumstances that could be addressed through a host of programs that already exist. The private companies who are profiting from fees levied, and from housing individuals in privately run jails are having boon times these days. Surely keeping a man or woman in child support arrears employed should be the priority when determining sentencing.
10
I am concerned about the lack of critical thinking of a man who drove a Mercedes but refused to pay child support.
I was owed manyl thousands of dollars in child support a long time ago by a man who used support as a means for continued control and abuse. I think the system was largely designed to prevent this, and ultimately the system worked but not without taking a huge toll. Divorcing people often behave badly--after all, don't we frequently divorce because of character issues?--and children also suffer the fallout from the bad behavior. A recent Times article pointed out that divorced women ultimately have more heart attacks than women who stay married. I can't help correlate the constant stressors from toxic manipulations of ex and children in trying to divorce a character-disordered dad with the mom getting heart disease.
2
What about "a character-disordered" mom? There are a lot of those out there!
From each and every perspective, from the human to the governmental, we are a society that is spinning out of control.
5
That is exactly the impression the GOPers who set things up this way want you to have. Fear of chaos is what they need to continue destroying our nation and remaking it into whatever psychotic money making machine they drivers of these policies imagine for us.
"Unpaid child support became a big concern in the 1980s and ’90s as public hostility grew toward the archetypal “deadbeat dad” who lived comfortably while his children suffered."
Using the "archetypal" model as justification for anything is pretty much the most irrational thing a mind can do. It works as an allegory to make a point in a lecture, not as a basis for real world action. For real world action one must have real world facts. In cases of child support decisions should be based on facts case by case.
I suspect not a few of these cases is passive aggressive imposition of Christian beliefs on people whom the imposer disapproves of and thinks should suffer for living as he/she imagines they do.
Men stuck in such ruts often fall into the patterns of addiction. In my view this is another intended result of such policies. People in the system for that generate a lot of money.
"But that process does not always work as intended…" I disagree. I believe the intent was for these laws to be used exactly as they have been used.
A careful perusal of our entire system the less you have the more everything costs. If you are broke rest assured jail time is coming. The system has been set up so that every person generates money for the upper classes one way or another by work or from the common taxpayer. "…if a mother receives public assistance, the father must pay it back, even if he is also poor." No honest person can see that as anything but intent to keep a poor man down.
Using the "archetypal" model as justification for anything is pretty much the most irrational thing a mind can do. It works as an allegory to make a point in a lecture, not as a basis for real world action. For real world action one must have real world facts. In cases of child support decisions should be based on facts case by case.
I suspect not a few of these cases is passive aggressive imposition of Christian beliefs on people whom the imposer disapproves of and thinks should suffer for living as he/she imagines they do.
Men stuck in such ruts often fall into the patterns of addiction. In my view this is another intended result of such policies. People in the system for that generate a lot of money.
"But that process does not always work as intended…" I disagree. I believe the intent was for these laws to be used exactly as they have been used.
A careful perusal of our entire system the less you have the more everything costs. If you are broke rest assured jail time is coming. The system has been set up so that every person generates money for the upper classes one way or another by work or from the common taxpayer. "…if a mother receives public assistance, the father must pay it back, even if he is also poor." No honest person can see that as anything but intent to keep a poor man down.
6
There is a simple solution for the "poor man." Practice birth control or keep it in your pants.
It's not a 'poor man' thing, its just society's rejection of the responsibility for disenfranchised offspring, also part of societies blindness to the possibility of disenfranchised children who may not be 'tainted' (aka deserve their "God given" plight).
Like it or not, the 'traditional values' that promoted the delusion that families are the the only ideal way to raise children are under attack by human evolution. The challenge is so fundamental, that there is sure to be a long, slow, and painful road to change.
Hopefully, the 'put them in jail thing (aka put them in stocks in the public square)' will be a temporary, transitional solution.
Like it or not, the 'traditional values' that promoted the delusion that families are the the only ideal way to raise children are under attack by human evolution. The challenge is so fundamental, that there is sure to be a long, slow, and painful road to change.
Hopefully, the 'put them in jail thing (aka put them in stocks in the public square)' will be a temporary, transitional solution.
The whole support system needs an overhaul. It is not like long ago where you had to become a bondservant to work off your debt. Jailing a person with no assets is counter productive. If the person has the money and the assets but refuses - then jail is ok. However it is absolutely stupid to lock people up who are just trying to make ends meet. Gone are the days when women were not in the workforce. The way support is ordered should reflect that. You also have another factor. Women have fought hard for abortion rights (which I personally don't agree with). There are millions of cases of unwed parents. A woman does not need a fathers consent to have an abortion... But what if the reverse is true? What if the man doesn't want to have the child. He can't force her to - so should he be forced to support a child he doesn't want? Seems like a catch 22 to me.
4
Medicaid does not pay for abortions. Hence, this is not an option for poor women. But more importantly, you are ignoring that it took two to create a child. If the man doesn't want the responsibility of a child, he should practice birth control or abstinence.
I don't think it is a Catch-22. The choice to have a child is entirely a woman's choice. If she wants to keep the child, he has to support it because 50% of the DNA is his. If he doesn't want to support the child then he shouldn't have children
J & G - that is not "equal"... So you seriously don't think women lie and say "i'm on birth control"??? There should be signed contracts. If a woman wants to have a child that a man doesn't want then she should sign away support rights. If she wants to abort - he has no recourse - so it's only "fair and equal".
I was a child support enforcement attorney in Kansas from April 2003-April 2012.
In my practice, I asked the court to issue bench warrants when debtors failed to appear at hearings after being properly served with a Motion for Contempt. If a bench warrant issued, and the man or woman subsequently obtained a job or made a direct payment before being arrested, I would ask the court to withdraw the bench warrant. I would then either issue an Income Withholding Order to the employer or, if the debtor was making direct payments with no known employer, I'd continue the court hearing.
I do not understand why a bench warrant was outstanding for Mr. Scott when he had a job. Why wasn't an Income Withholding Order issued to his employer? Or why wasn't the court case continued to see if he was making direct payments? It makes no legal or economic sense to put somebody in jail when they have a job or are making reasonable direct payments. The goal is to get the man or woman paying, not to have them go to jail and lose the job.
In my practice, I asked the court to issue bench warrants when debtors failed to appear at hearings after being properly served with a Motion for Contempt. If a bench warrant issued, and the man or woman subsequently obtained a job or made a direct payment before being arrested, I would ask the court to withdraw the bench warrant. I would then either issue an Income Withholding Order to the employer or, if the debtor was making direct payments with no known employer, I'd continue the court hearing.
I do not understand why a bench warrant was outstanding for Mr. Scott when he had a job. Why wasn't an Income Withholding Order issued to his employer? Or why wasn't the court case continued to see if he was making direct payments? It makes no legal or economic sense to put somebody in jail when they have a job or are making reasonable direct payments. The goal is to get the man or woman paying, not to have them go to jail and lose the job.
12
@Tom Note that all of this article is secondhand information.
"It makes no legal or economic sense to put somebody in jail when they have a job..."
But it makes legal and economic sense to put somebody in jail when the don't have a job? In what century?
And lawyers wonder why people hate them...
But it makes legal and economic sense to put somebody in jail when the don't have a job? In what century?
And lawyers wonder why people hate them...
When the judges I appeared before ordered a man or woman to jail for failure to pay child support -- after an attorney was appointed to represent them, and after having at least two hearings and the opportunity to find a job or make payments -- the judges almost always ordered them to participate in a job search program. Once they secured a job, and payments began, they were released from jail.
Child Support has a lot of problems, as the comments here indicate. Jail is not an optimum outcome. I bent over backwards to give the debtors due process of law and to give them every opportunity for their side to be heard in court and to make payments or find a job before asking for jail time.
The biggest problem with child support is the lack of decent jobs for the debtors. These are people struggling with minimum wage to $12 an hour jobs with no benefits. If the jobs at WalMart and McDonalds, or even in manufacturing, paid better, child support caseloads would start shrinking.
Child Support has a lot of problems, as the comments here indicate. Jail is not an optimum outcome. I bent over backwards to give the debtors due process of law and to give them every opportunity for their side to be heard in court and to make payments or find a job before asking for jail time.
The biggest problem with child support is the lack of decent jobs for the debtors. These are people struggling with minimum wage to $12 an hour jobs with no benefits. If the jobs at WalMart and McDonalds, or even in manufacturing, paid better, child support caseloads would start shrinking.
Just unfair isn't it, to be made responsible for the kids you produce. Well, poor guy won't have to run away from duties anymore.
13
Delight in a man's death by gunshot has to be repulsive to anyone with a conscience. Maybe it's time to interrupt the appreciative cackling for half a minute and think about the agony that now faces these four children who have no father.
Why is it that no matter what intractable social problem might exist in this great nation, the only solution our politicians can ever provide is incarceration?
I know there's an urgent need to create steady jobs that pay well, and prisons seem to be the only growth industry that still exists within our borders. I know there's a similarly urgent need to maintain world leadership at a time when our national prestige is being rapidly and eagerly sacrificed in the name of "national security" and "shareholder value." Incarceration is the one area where the United States still proudly towers above the rest of the world.
But articles like this clearly show that throwing as many people as possible into prisons creates at least as many problems as it purports to solve. When will our elected officials realize that sweeping our problems into prisons is not the one-size-fits-all solution?
I know there's an urgent need to create steady jobs that pay well, and prisons seem to be the only growth industry that still exists within our borders. I know there's a similarly urgent need to maintain world leadership at a time when our national prestige is being rapidly and eagerly sacrificed in the name of "national security" and "shareholder value." Incarceration is the one area where the United States still proudly towers above the rest of the world.
But articles like this clearly show that throwing as many people as possible into prisons creates at least as many problems as it purports to solve. When will our elected officials realize that sweeping our problems into prisons is not the one-size-fits-all solution?
77
If the majority of those imprisoned are disproportionately people of color then it seems as if the practice of jailing people for being poor is a violation of their civil rights. In NYC alone it costs $168,000 per year to incarcerate a person. This is taxpayer money going to waste, while the money could be used for job training much more efficiently. The cycle of poverty will only endure when fathers are jailed and their chances for future employment are ruined as a result.
How about offering the cost of incarceration to care for the kids?
Because jailing our men is a favorite past time of both the Right AND the Left. They just wish to do it for different reasons.
I'm appalled at the insensitivity of so many commenters. The idea that he shouldn't be buying a 20 yr old car (be it Benz or otherwise) is ludicrous. You guys say he should work, but you don't want him to have transportation to get to work, because you think it's "too nice" of a car. That piece of junk probably didn't cost more than a few hundred dollars. He is not in NYC, public transportation is intermittent at best. There is so much more to be said, but I'm sure it would fall on deaf ears. It is very hard to understand the plight of the poor Black American, when you are White middle-class American. Ignorance is bliss, indeed.
103
Poor whites get the same treatment.
Good comment. In fact it was a 1990 or 1991 model, depending on which media account you read, so the car was around 25 years old - a quarter of a century. You're right - the nerve of a black man daring to buy and drive a quarter-century old Merc, when he should have been paying every penny he earned in child support. Just who did Mr Scott think he was?
1
They should have thought twice about having those kids in the first place.
7
It's a slippery slope when you start saying that some people become above the law because they are too poor. We already have a system that effectively puts illegal aliens above the law, in that illegal aliens are often let go when caught driving without licensees and without registering their vehicles, getting in accidents without insurance, thus incentivizing law breaking.
4
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France
The evil people on the right are against abortion in all cases, but complain that poor people should not have children; and if they do, they and the children should be left to their own devises.
7
Its also important to note the role of the fathers next partner in encouraging him to evade his responsibilities towards his children created with his previous partner. These are often serial stories--man has children; relationship ends; man begins new relationship and creates new children, and their mother or mothers work energetically to keep as much of his assets away from every other mothers children in his life.
And Ive seen this with nice, educated middle-class white women as well as with poor minority women. Then they are shocked and enraged when it happens to them in their turn.
As other commenters note--if you cannot afford to raise children, do not have them. If you cannot control your wanderlust, do not create families. If you hope for a decent life for yourself after divorce, make sure any subsequent partner understands you have an obligation to children already born. If you cannot do that, you are a criminal not just in the eyes of the law.
And Ive seen this with nice, educated middle-class white women as well as with poor minority women. Then they are shocked and enraged when it happens to them in their turn.
As other commenters note--if you cannot afford to raise children, do not have them. If you cannot control your wanderlust, do not create families. If you hope for a decent life for yourself after divorce, make sure any subsequent partner understands you have an obligation to children already born. If you cannot do that, you are a criminal not just in the eyes of the law.
10
When I moved into my current house, the elderly couple across the street were raising their then-12-year-old twin redheaded, freckle-faced grandsons.
The reason? Their mom had died three years earlier and their dad quickly hooked up with another woman, and married her. She baldly stated that she "wasn't gonna raise some other woman's kids," so Bobby and Billy were shunted permanently to Grandma and Grandpa. I have no words to describe my contempt for such a woman and it happens ALL the time.
These boys are in their 20s now and the emotional damage from their mom's death and dad's rejection is apparent; they are chronic underachievers, one went from wiry pre-teen to morbidly-obese adult and their gratitude when a middle-aged woman like me shows a kindly interest in their school or work is so pitiful that it hurts to behold.
Once you decide to have kids, your own love live and emotional fulfillment need to be put on the back burner till the kids are self-sufficient adults. No matter what "sacrifices" that costs you. And to get between someone else and their kids is despicable.
The reason? Their mom had died three years earlier and their dad quickly hooked up with another woman, and married her. She baldly stated that she "wasn't gonna raise some other woman's kids," so Bobby and Billy were shunted permanently to Grandma and Grandpa. I have no words to describe my contempt for such a woman and it happens ALL the time.
These boys are in their 20s now and the emotional damage from their mom's death and dad's rejection is apparent; they are chronic underachievers, one went from wiry pre-teen to morbidly-obese adult and their gratitude when a middle-aged woman like me shows a kindly interest in their school or work is so pitiful that it hurts to behold.
Once you decide to have kids, your own love live and emotional fulfillment need to be put on the back burner till the kids are self-sufficient adults. No matter what "sacrifices" that costs you. And to get between someone else and their kids is despicable.
sad that so many commentors say the answer is simple, just don't have kids. If life were truly that simple the world would be so much easier to deal with. We outlaw abortion and don't help young people with birth control or even sex education. we lock up people who then lose their job or drivers license and expect them to still pay support. We penalize people for a mistake they may have made years ago, sort of a puritanical life long curse. This article has really brought out some of the worst in the american people as the comments here indicate.
6
THANK YOU!!! The amount of binary thinking in the comments is insane. Unbelievable that this is a reflection of some of the American people!
The answer is always simple, until it happens to you or your family.
The perfect example was the national radio commentator who loudly advocated for treating drug users as harshly as drug dealers, and then he was found to have a drug addiction....
The perfect example was the national radio commentator who loudly advocated for treating drug users as harshly as drug dealers, and then he was found to have a drug addiction....
1
"We outlaw abortion and don't help young people with birth control or even sex education. "
Who is "we"? Sadly, abortion is in fact legal, and young people presumably have parents who are under no gag order regarding the birds and the bees.
I'm not saying we can't do a better job with sex ed, but let's not pretend that young folks are kept ignorant and are unable to walk into a drug store and buy a condom.
Who is "we"? Sadly, abortion is in fact legal, and young people presumably have parents who are under no gag order regarding the birds and the bees.
I'm not saying we can't do a better job with sex ed, but let's not pretend that young folks are kept ignorant and are unable to walk into a drug store and buy a condom.
The real immorality of this tale is the thoughtless multiple impregnations--and both the male and female bear responsibility here. Would that child-bearing could not take place without far more training and preparation for one of life's greatest challenges. I am currently helping my son and his wife out after their fourth child was born. These children are being reared in a loving, responsible manner--and it takes everything they've got to make it happen including help from a caring extended family and a community of friends. Thoughtless childbirth is one of the greatest tragedies we can inflict on the next generation.
13
I have talked to many young people, and advised the seek advice from programs like Planned Parenthood, and very surprised how effective the GOP message is that these are anti-god government agencies not out to help them but out to hurt them, and them to black lists, and kill babies. I am sure many that push that message are very glad of its effectiveness.
In pursuit of a despised stereotypical character--the irresponsible, divorced father living high on the hog while refusing to support his children--we have created a system that criminalizes and perpetuates poverty while depriving children of their fathers. There are instances of the stereotype, to be sure, but (as this story notes) the vast majority of "deadbeat dads" (a label that should be forbidden by news media's style guides) are poor. They struggle to support themselves and their children and their struggles are exacerbated by the collateral consequences of our child support enforcement mechanisms. Too often, child support enforcement is little more than one more element of "the new Jim Crow."
It's time to get serious about promoting true shared parenting and making reasonable child support obligations to allow both parents to function as real parents to their children provided they are both fit and willing.
It's time to get serious about promoting true shared parenting and making reasonable child support obligations to allow both parents to function as real parents to their children provided they are both fit and willing.
3
it sounds to me like you believe that it is society's fault that these situations exist, no the person responsible for the child, surely you do not believe that?
I want to focus on one sentence in this article:
"Scott reunited with his family, turned himself in for the unpaid child support and served another five months in jail"
Five months? What is the justification for such a lengthy and and expensive term? Jail time supposed to be a stick used to enforce civil disputes. It seems to me it has mutated here into stealth imprisonment, in which the defendant has no right to a lawyer. Mr. Scott was not a criminal. He committed no offense against the state.
Here's a criminal prison sentence for comparison:
In 2003, Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison for insider trading, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
"Scott reunited with his family, turned himself in for the unpaid child support and served another five months in jail"
Five months? What is the justification for such a lengthy and and expensive term? Jail time supposed to be a stick used to enforce civil disputes. It seems to me it has mutated here into stealth imprisonment, in which the defendant has no right to a lawyer. Mr. Scott was not a criminal. He committed no offense against the state.
Here's a criminal prison sentence for comparison:
In 2003, Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison for insider trading, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
22
Poor persons, mainly men, put in jail for failure to pay child support orders they don't have the financial resources to pay. Why does the larger community allow, or even support, such minimally effective enforcement actions?
Because the larger community believes that the vast majority of those men are minority men who fathered those children in the most casual of relationships with the mothers of those children and left the responsibility to support those children upon the taxpaying public.
Until that reality (or the perception that that is the reality) changes there will be no support in the larger community (voting taxpayers) to change the system.
Because the larger community believes that the vast majority of those men are minority men who fathered those children in the most casual of relationships with the mothers of those children and left the responsibility to support those children upon the taxpaying public.
Until that reality (or the perception that that is the reality) changes there will be no support in the larger community (voting taxpayers) to change the system.
5
Another issue that needs to be addressed is how the IRS reports the income received for recovered child support. It is inexplicably reported as dividend income. This makes custodial parents ineligible for the earned income credit and many other credits aimed at helping the working poor.
4
The anti-abortion campaign in the US is simply denial that fallible human beings do make mistakes, and correcting them early prevents them from snowballing.
15
Since abortion is in fact legal in all fifty states, you'd think there would be no cases of deadbeat parents and owed child support.
Also, children are not mistakes. Having unprotected sex when you can't support any resulting child is an imprudent act.
Also, children are not mistakes. Having unprotected sex when you can't support any resulting child is an imprudent act.
I thought debtors' prisons were a thing of hundreds of years ago--part of the tyranny the American Revolution was supposed to overthrow.
10
A young man that works for me has been imprisoned and beaten for non payment of child support. In a prior job he was being paid less than a living wage and was unable to meet the legal requirements. The police seemed to take great delight in arresting and assaulting him although he did nothing to resist and also was unaware why he was being arrested (at the time). These issues seem to bring on a sadistic, brutal, atavistic, 'Christian' attitude among those in control, the judges, the police. It won't be long before abortions, castrations, and sterilization will be the norm, if the posts here represent community feeling. Is there a way to put value on a human life?
10
Let's make this easy; if you are poor, none of the laws that apply to others apply to you.
6
How about finding an alternative to locking people up because they don't have the money to pay for something.
There is no clear road to child support receipt for children when a father loses driver's license, work license and languishes, unproductive in the jail system. America has gone "fast track" on punishing non-violent crime, to no productive end. I cant imagine these policies as helpful to children. Perhaps tax money spent on jail time would better serve families if living wage, child support payments deducted automatically, from paid community positions, stipend educational apprenticeship programs, as sentencing for those who cannot support their children. And the less self-defeating system of sliding scale in recompense of child support for those who work but cannot afford child support sums demanded by the courts.
6
There is an easy fix. Don't have kids if you can't afford them.
12
The system is not perfect, but I have a hard time feeling sympathy for those who conceive a child and then want us to feel badly because they don't have the resources to provide for him/her. All the while, the custodial parent (more often the mother,) is providing caring for the child and often working outside the home also. Your child still has to eat if you get laid off. Your child still needs a roof over his head if your hours are reduced. Custodial parents *HAVE TO* pick up the slack every time a child support payment is missed--where are the articles on that? You have a right to decide whether or not to use birth control. You have a right to decide whether or not to stay with your co-partner in conception. You do not have the right to ignore or slack in your obligations to an innocent child that you created.
15
I think we've been hearing about dead-beat dads for a long, long time.
Maybe, it is time to hear about and consider the other side of the story and whether sending a dad to jail puts any support money in the child's life.
Can we really not come up with solutions that actually help support the child while insuring that both parents take financial responsibility for him/her?
We have gotten way too rigid in our thinking...to the point we just don't think things through to their real life conclusions.
Maybe, it is time to hear about and consider the other side of the story and whether sending a dad to jail puts any support money in the child's life.
Can we really not come up with solutions that actually help support the child while insuring that both parents take financial responsibility for him/her?
We have gotten way too rigid in our thinking...to the point we just don't think things through to their real life conclusions.
Nobody is asking you to feel badly. Empathy or caring is a heavy lift for some people.
However, supporting a policy which creates impossible burdens on people is just stupid. "70 percent of the [child support] arrears were owed by people who reported less than $10,000 a year in income." So, the solution is to put them in jail? As if that will increase their earning potential?
In addition to being cruel and counterproductive (which I'm assuming doesn't bother you) it costs us money.
How much does it cost to keep someone in jail for 5 months for not paying $3,500 in child support? $30,000? $40,000? $50,000? That's not a very wise use of resources.
However, supporting a policy which creates impossible burdens on people is just stupid. "70 percent of the [child support] arrears were owed by people who reported less than $10,000 a year in income." So, the solution is to put them in jail? As if that will increase their earning potential?
In addition to being cruel and counterproductive (which I'm assuming doesn't bother you) it costs us money.
How much does it cost to keep someone in jail for 5 months for not paying $3,500 in child support? $30,000? $40,000? $50,000? That's not a very wise use of resources.
1
Yeah, and often the mother is hardly "supporting" her own child, either, but rather on multiple forms of dole from the EITC to WIC, SNAP, TANF, school lunches, etc. They aren't innocent saints in the equation by a long shot.
I am a woman. I began paying child support for my daughter when I was 17 y.o. 10 years later; 3-months of unemployment put me behind on my payments. I was living in FL. the child lived in PA. I found employment and paid half the arrears before a scheduled court date. At the advice of the case manager, I sacrificed and traveled to PA for the hearing.
The judge ordered me jailed until I could pay the remaining amount. I had to borrow money and use my rent payment to avoid an overnight stay. I ended up in a holding cell for 6 hours, until the bail was posted. My drivers license was also suspended. Years later, facing a job elimination, I applied for a position with the county. I was notified that I was not eligible for the position as it was at the jail, and I had been booked there previously. It would take me 4 months to find another job.
When the child went away at to college 16, for an education funded by scholarships, I was still obligated to pay. During those last 2 years, and the years before, I bought computers, clothes, food and sent cash in emergencies. One of the happiest days of my life was the day, 5 days before her 18th birthday, when I submitted that final payment.
The judge ordered me jailed until I could pay the remaining amount. I had to borrow money and use my rent payment to avoid an overnight stay. I ended up in a holding cell for 6 hours, until the bail was posted. My drivers license was also suspended. Years later, facing a job elimination, I applied for a position with the county. I was notified that I was not eligible for the position as it was at the jail, and I had been booked there previously. It would take me 4 months to find another job.
When the child went away at to college 16, for an education funded by scholarships, I was still obligated to pay. During those last 2 years, and the years before, I bought computers, clothes, food and sent cash in emergencies. One of the happiest days of my life was the day, 5 days before her 18th birthday, when I submitted that final payment.
49
It is tragic but understandable that the happiest day in your life was when you could stop paying rather than the day your child graduated from college.
You're lucky. I had to pay until she turned 21 - including half of college tuition - for a child I loved dearly - and she me - but whose mother saw fit to manipulate into estrangement. No visitation, weekends, holidays, or anything else in the "parenting plan" that was part of the court order; only the dollar amount against me was enforced.
Gosh, I thought you were going to say "one of the happiest days of my life was when my daughter was accepted in college at 16, with her education fully funded by scholarships", or "the day my daughter graduated from college". Instead, it's "the child".
Poor child.
Poor child.
1
Until men get an equal say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term, I don't think it's moral to shackle a man to a lifetime of fatherhood because of a momentary event.
If someone affirmatively fathers children in a marriage or committed relationship and the relationship breaks up, let the parties work out an agreement among themselves. (And women, if you don't think that is going to be feasible, why are you bearing the child of such an unreliable, untrustworhty guy?)
If a pregnancy results from consensual casual sex to which the woman agreed knowing neither party was using any or adequate (two methods is safest) birth control, why does she get the final say as to whether it's a $300 mistake (abortion) or an 18-year financial and lifelong emotional involvement? Woman put the men in a "heads I win, tails you lose," situation all the time and feel morally justified, even noble. But that's just wrong.
That's never made sense to me, and I say that as a woman who has spent 35 years ensuring that I don't get pregnant whether in a relationship or a fling. It's quite possible to avoid bearing a child if one is hellbent not to do so -- so why would any woman care so little about her offspring that she lets any old partner father them, whether he wants to be involved or not? If women were more discriminating about who sires their kids, a lot of these problems would evaporate.
If someone affirmatively fathers children in a marriage or committed relationship and the relationship breaks up, let the parties work out an agreement among themselves. (And women, if you don't think that is going to be feasible, why are you bearing the child of such an unreliable, untrustworhty guy?)
If a pregnancy results from consensual casual sex to which the woman agreed knowing neither party was using any or adequate (two methods is safest) birth control, why does she get the final say as to whether it's a $300 mistake (abortion) or an 18-year financial and lifelong emotional involvement? Woman put the men in a "heads I win, tails you lose," situation all the time and feel morally justified, even noble. But that's just wrong.
That's never made sense to me, and I say that as a woman who has spent 35 years ensuring that I don't get pregnant whether in a relationship or a fling. It's quite possible to avoid bearing a child if one is hellbent not to do so -- so why would any woman care so little about her offspring that she lets any old partner father them, whether he wants to be involved or not? If women were more discriminating about who sires their kids, a lot of these problems would evaporate.
5
Great response!
Given the country-wide push to prohibit abortion, do you really think this will happen?
The key point is this: "The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay." We should all agree that both parents need to show responsibility for their children, but child support assessment formulas are often completely ungrounded, demanding more than a noncustodial parent can afford to pay, and, after remarriage and the arrival of new children, the cost of maintaining the welfare of the new family is not fairly considered. The system is broken and needs to be updated and rationalized. It should be driven by fairness, not a Victorian desire to punish noncustodial parents for their perceived misdeeds.
It could also be argued that the parent starting the new family hasn't fairly considered that cost either. If you can only afford to support 2 children and you decide to have 4, you are being irresponsible regardless of how many reproductive partners are involved.
As far as these men choosing to have children they cannot support, they are actually more often than not just choosing to have sex. The women who get pregnant as a result are choosing to have the children. That's the law. Women choose between abortion, adoption and raising the child themselves. Legally, men do not get a say in that decision. They become names on a birth certificate (proof of paternity not necessary) and the state calls for child support.
Men should have no say over whether a woman has a child or not but should they automatically pay for the woman's decision? Society says yes for the sake of the child but does that violate equal citizenship?
Those are the legalities but generally people just need to be more responsible about child bearing for everyone's sake.
Men should have no say over whether a woman has a child or not but should they automatically pay for the woman's decision? Society says yes for the sake of the child but does that violate equal citizenship?
Those are the legalities but generally people just need to be more responsible about child bearing for everyone's sake.
6
As a former family law paralegal my experiences were due to the debtor not responding to a court appearance or responding to court orders for financial disclosure. We don't have debtor prisons in this country. Not responding to a court order, warrant, or bench warrant are grounds for incarceration; not the amount due.
5
One important lesson that we can all learn from this article, if we haven't already had the experience, is that divorce and/or spawning out-of-wedlock children can be path to poverty for many.
11
This is reminiscent of Dickensian tales of debtors prison, reformed about 2 centuries ago. An improvement in our child support system would be expanding the child care, earned income and dependent tax benefits to non-custodial parents to the extent that they have met child support obligations during the taxable year.
3
Let me see, if a couple divorces, 50% loss, have children then mother gets custody of the children and a whopping child care and then the mother refuses to let you see your own kids and if you do they have an attitude. From the article it is clear that if you miss on childcare payment, you go to jail, lose your job, credibility and enter cycle of doom. And why exactly American men want to get married? Americans are their own worst enemy.
4
2 points:
- instead of why do they want to get married, ask why they want to get divorced.
- The late Mr. Scott was only married to one of the mothers of his children.
- instead of why do they want to get married, ask why they want to get divorced.
- The late Mr. Scott was only married to one of the mothers of his children.
We are a society based on ancient concepts embodied in one word: punishment. After being punished, then punish again. Never stop punishing people, never let up.
In the case of punishments based on not paying enough, it is basically one for being poor. You should not be poor. This is your fault. If you were a good person, you wouldn't be poor.
On top of this, there are court fees and fees for not paying your fees on time and fees for not paying you late fees on time, plus interest.(Govt. immitates businesses.) In addition, courts and governments are now allowing corporations to assess fees. In Virginia, the legislature passed laws that allow the operators of the EZ-Pass system to place massive fees on people who go through a toll booth without paying. One person faced $18,000. in fines and fees because of an expired credit card.
The southern states are the worst punishment states, but the practices are not limited to that area. This is how the poor, black, white or other races, are kept in line, by the overhanging threat of jail at any time. Further, in the south it seems any and every minor violation is now tied in to the driver's license. That'll get their attention, right? Suspend, fine, suspend, fine, suspend.
We have a social interest in compelling fathers the pay the cost of raising their children, but there is no gain in creating situations that stop them from doing so. This is a form of legal and social insanity, but it will likely continue for decades longer.
In the case of punishments based on not paying enough, it is basically one for being poor. You should not be poor. This is your fault. If you were a good person, you wouldn't be poor.
On top of this, there are court fees and fees for not paying your fees on time and fees for not paying you late fees on time, plus interest.(Govt. immitates businesses.) In addition, courts and governments are now allowing corporations to assess fees. In Virginia, the legislature passed laws that allow the operators of the EZ-Pass system to place massive fees on people who go through a toll booth without paying. One person faced $18,000. in fines and fees because of an expired credit card.
The southern states are the worst punishment states, but the practices are not limited to that area. This is how the poor, black, white or other races, are kept in line, by the overhanging threat of jail at any time. Further, in the south it seems any and every minor violation is now tied in to the driver's license. That'll get their attention, right? Suspend, fine, suspend, fine, suspend.
We have a social interest in compelling fathers the pay the cost of raising their children, but there is no gain in creating situations that stop them from doing so. This is a form of legal and social insanity, but it will likely continue for decades longer.
5
As a society, we have not prepared large populations of young men and young women for the responsibility that comes with caring for a child. Leaving it to the court to apportion wages in lieu of men taking responsibility is bound to result in bad outcomes. Re-write the article "Having a Child out of Wedlock and while Poor Traps many in Cycle of Poverty".
We need to care more about our current population at the bottom of the ladder or the future is going to be bleak for many generations to come.
We need to care more about our current population at the bottom of the ladder or the future is going to be bleak for many generations to come.
7
We are too intent on punishing the un-deserving poor than thinking about the long term effects on society of failure in identifying their problems and trying to resolve them.
This is obviously a complex issue with much deeper implications to society than mere child support, but poor men, POOR MEN, need to stop thinking producing children is a sign of their virility and take some responsibility for contraception.
Imagine, if anyone had the foresight to use a condom. This would all be a moot point.
Imagine, if anyone had the foresight to use a condom. This would all be a moot point.
11
I agree, and I would add that women need to stop thinking that having a child will bind its father to her or make him love her more. Not sure this is limited to poor women, either.
Punitive America still living in the 19th century. The situation described in the article is debtor's prison pure and simple. Look at incarceration rates across the nation. Punishment R US.
9
Check out the documentary Divorce Corp. While the purported purpose of there system is to meet children's needs, the reality is far different -- it's a moneymaker for various interests, including a vast class of judicial employees, lawyers, and, yes, often also litigants, including to a significant extent the "custodial parent" [sic], the rights of the "non-custodial parent [sic] having been removed in un-Constitutional fashion.
When I lost custody of my child, having never done anything wrong in my life, although I never lost my middle-class job, had it not been for kind, loving parents, I would have ended up in jail or on the street or both. As it was, I was reduced to a near-poverty existence for nearly two decades and my child, whom I love more than anything in this world, was turned against me with the courts' help. I am hardly alone. Reasonable estimates are that this happens to millions of U.S. divorced parents. This circumstance not only does not serve the children, it disserves them in ways now being documented by social scientists.
When I lost custody of my child, having never done anything wrong in my life, although I never lost my middle-class job, had it not been for kind, loving parents, I would have ended up in jail or on the street or both. As it was, I was reduced to a near-poverty existence for nearly two decades and my child, whom I love more than anything in this world, was turned against me with the courts' help. I am hardly alone. Reasonable estimates are that this happens to millions of U.S. divorced parents. This circumstance not only does not serve the children, it disserves them in ways now being documented by social scientists.
8
Whether it be child support or traffic tickets the court system is no friend of the minority communities around the county. In New Jersey the municipal (traffic) court judge's are hired by the town based on the promise of increased revenue streams! The study done in Ferguson where they found 4-5-6 warrants per person in the community is ridiculous, but not shocking to me. The additional 'tax' placed on all the communities via fines, warrant fees, bail bonds, payment plans on fines, and Failure to Appear Court Notices can not be sustained.
In addition the mandatory auto insurance laws and emissions standards and vehicle safety standards make owning a car on minimum wage virtually impossible.
How about raising a child without a good education, a profession, job, a car, health care, and warrants out for your arrest. These social ills make all economic growth even more impossible to achieve as a young adult! Lets throw in disfunctional home life, one parent households, mental health issues, drug addiction, abusive relationships, drug dealing, criminal convictions, and what do you have? Lets get ride of the ability to obtain an abortion, lets deny federal huosing and student loan access to convicted felons, lets gerry mander districts to limit the ability to have full representation, lets reduce educational funding for inner cities, lets put more cops on the street! Hillary Clinton's comments about 'it take a community' to raise a child rings TRUE! HAHAHAHAHAHa
In addition the mandatory auto insurance laws and emissions standards and vehicle safety standards make owning a car on minimum wage virtually impossible.
How about raising a child without a good education, a profession, job, a car, health care, and warrants out for your arrest. These social ills make all economic growth even more impossible to achieve as a young adult! Lets throw in disfunctional home life, one parent households, mental health issues, drug addiction, abusive relationships, drug dealing, criminal convictions, and what do you have? Lets get ride of the ability to obtain an abortion, lets deny federal huosing and student loan access to convicted felons, lets gerry mander districts to limit the ability to have full representation, lets reduce educational funding for inner cities, lets put more cops on the street! Hillary Clinton's comments about 'it take a community' to raise a child rings TRUE! HAHAHAHAHAHa
5
"In addition the mandatory auto insurance laws and emissions standards and vehicle safety standards make owning a car on minimum wage virtually impossible."
You were doing fine until that line. The insurance and emissions laws protect us all.
You were doing fine until that line. The insurance and emissions laws protect us all.
Mrs. Clinton's statement years ago that it "takes a village" was widely misinterpreted and this was intentional on the part of the right wing in America, who wanted to portray her as indicating that parents should not be responsible for their children. The idea of a whole community being responsible for children harks back to a different time in America when the adults of the community would see children "misbehaving" and tell them to stop. The other parents would sometimes contact the children's parents and tell them what their children had been doing. This was a powerful bit of parental reenforcement, because it had the result of indicating that the community, the society, would not tolerate stealing, fights or running out in the streets or other behavior.
Mrs. Clinton was never intending to indicate that parents shouldn't be involved with their children, but rather than everyone, including neighbors, teachers and extended family, would be involved in caring for them, protecting them and teaching what was expected. Anything anyone says can be distorted, especially if people listening want to hear a different message.
Mrs. Clinton was never intending to indicate that parents shouldn't be involved with their children, but rather than everyone, including neighbors, teachers and extended family, would be involved in caring for them, protecting them and teaching what was expected. Anything anyone says can be distorted, especially if people listening want to hear a different message.
The problem is much bigger than we suspect. Nobody can afford a lawyer. not even lawyers. The court system is so clogged and overbooked that justice is denied even to those who can afford access.
In effect, the entire American system of justice is available only to the rich -- with the embarrassing exception of court-appointed attorneys for criminal defendants. and they are stacked to the eyeballs.
Until the average person can get problems quickly resolved in court, our justice system is systemically unjust.
In effect, the entire American system of justice is available only to the rich -- with the embarrassing exception of court-appointed attorneys for criminal defendants. and they are stacked to the eyeballs.
Until the average person can get problems quickly resolved in court, our justice system is systemically unjust.
7
Boy do you have that right!
Your article is twenty years behind the times. Child support is a litigation weapon used to incapacitate the obligor and to sever his ties with his children. It is a means of entertainment for the custodial parent by way of the legalized harassment of the obligor.
2
Or, to put it another way, child support is a moral obligation.
I'd like to see a long-tern study of the current prison population in the US. What percentage of inmates came from homes with no father present and what percentage came from families where no child support was paid. I would argue that it is a revolving door. Poor, no father, making bad life choices, go to jail. repeat.
14
OK, not jail but this article leaves completely unanswered the question of how to deal with irresponsible men who refuse to fulfill their moral and legal responsibilities to their children. Far too often the answer is: let 'the State' do it, meaning the taxpayer, and let the fathers go on their merry way.
11
My ex, owning his own business, was paid much of his salary under the table. His court ordered child support of $300 a month, didn't even pay for 2 weeks of daycare. I worked 50 plus hours a week. My ex took 4 months off every winter, to travel to tropical locations. I was fortunate enough, to meet and marry a man, that raised my son as his own. My son. now in his twenties, is successful and happy. After years, I just collected $14,000 of back support, only a portion.My ex sent me multiple abusive emails, calling the support "extortion". Sorry, there is a whole other side to this story.
11
I have sympathy for your story.
But we all can also have sympathy for those who are overburdened by excessive child support judgements, jailed for missing payments they couldn't ever make, lose professional and other licenses, all of which, incidentally, ruin the person's earning potential.
It's unfortunate that being a victim of one type of injustice doesn't make you more sensitive to those who are victims of another kind of injustice.
But we all can also have sympathy for those who are overburdened by excessive child support judgements, jailed for missing payments they couldn't ever make, lose professional and other licenses, all of which, incidentally, ruin the person's earning potential.
It's unfortunate that being a victim of one type of injustice doesn't make you more sensitive to those who are victims of another kind of injustice.
What we're failing to see is that each case is a family-specific case and no two are alike.
But, it appears our child support enforcement system is one-size-fits-all.
It sounds like that's what needs to change.
It sounds like you got the shaft from a sorry man who should have never had children.
It sounds like Walter Scott got the shaft, too, along with his children who didn't get a thing when he was in jail.
But, it appears our child support enforcement system is one-size-fits-all.
It sounds like that's what needs to change.
It sounds like you got the shaft from a sorry man who should have never had children.
It sounds like Walter Scott got the shaft, too, along with his children who didn't get a thing when he was in jail.
Sadly, the institutional problem of unpaid child support is only further complicated by a judicial system rife with draconian 1950's legal standards that don't even begin to address the economic inequalities that currently exist in our nation's new century anemic employment and labor sectors. It is beyond my comprehension how on earth a sitting family court judge could
look past the fact that a man owing thousands in support, yet earns barely above minimum wage is somehow worthy of needing 'jail time'. Really?
How does him sitting in jail benefit his children. Instead, why not reset his support order at a level compatible with- his earning level. Then, you monitor his payments and earnings. If his earning increase, you reconvene for a small increase in payment.
This isn't and doesn't have to be difficult. But, it is common sense, something we seem to be lacking these days.
look past the fact that a man owing thousands in support, yet earns barely above minimum wage is somehow worthy of needing 'jail time'. Really?
How does him sitting in jail benefit his children. Instead, why not reset his support order at a level compatible with- his earning level. Then, you monitor his payments and earnings. If his earning increase, you reconvene for a small increase in payment.
This isn't and doesn't have to be difficult. But, it is common sense, something we seem to be lacking these days.
2
My father was a deadbeat dad. My mother worked, but it was not enough. If it were not for my maternal grandparents, I don't know what would have happened to us. I'm not very sympathetic to these fathers.
61
Life isn't all about you. Your father was a deadbeat, but the father's mentioned in this article *can't* pay. It is vicious and amoral to jail someone for something he *can't* do.
10
What if you are a father who lost his job? What if they can't find employment that pays as well as when they were married? I won't even get into the issues of the effect of being incarcerated and having a drivers license suspended.
I speak as a person who had to pay child support, and a person who received child support, and a legal services attorney who had to represent people seeking child support and those seeking to reduce their obligation to pay child support. I think I speak from a position of some knowledge.
The most underreported and most destructive policy in this area is the requirement to report noncustodial parents (most often fathers) not for the benefit of the child but for the recoupment of public assistance benefits. The custodial parent often realizes that there is rarely direct financial support to them but the increased estrangement from a former friend for the benefit of the state is not a fair bargain to anyone but mean spirited politicians. However, our denigration of the noncustodial parent is such that this cannot be heard.
The most underreported and most destructive policy in this area is the requirement to report noncustodial parents (most often fathers) not for the benefit of the child but for the recoupment of public assistance benefits. The custodial parent often realizes that there is rarely direct financial support to them but the increased estrangement from a former friend for the benefit of the state is not a fair bargain to anyone but mean spirited politicians. However, our denigration of the noncustodial parent is such that this cannot be heard.
6
So, then, the solution is to not compel the custodial parent to report the father of the child before applying for public assistance? Certainly I can see where doing might alienate the father, but if he's refusing to take financial responsibility he's alienated anyway. The regulation intent is to compel biological fathers to do what the should be doing voluntarily - supporting their children.
I am truly gratified that not one of the comments I read this morning was (willfully) misread by any commenters who I expected to say something like "being behind in child support payments does not entitle a white cop to shoot a black man in the back" That said here is the problem in a nutshell: personal responsibility. "Walter Scott had four children, two in the early 1990s outside of marriage, and two in the late 1990s with a woman to whom he was married. The marriage crumbled when one of the children was still a toddler"-- here ladies and gentleman is the crux of the problem. The NYT writes this piece as if society is the real problem behind Mr. Scott's predicament, not Mr. Scott. if deadbeat Dad's have the perception that liberals will provide them cover when they live their lives as if they are 8 years old and allowed to grab and eat everything in the candy shop we as a society are going to continue to produce Walter Scotts. I'm sorry but if the best you can do argument wise is to tell me that it is better that I (the taxpayer) should foot the bill by the Government giving the mother of his children handouts rather than have Walter Scott be accountable for his actions all I can say is go sell it in the Church of the liberal progressive, because you do not have a buyer here.
6
Well, yes, but
1. Throwing the dad in jail isn't going to fix this problem, it will simply keep him from supporting his kids and cost the taxpayer money -- more than supporting the kids would;
2. Conservatives oppose birth control, abortion, and sex education, all of which are the best tools we have to reduce this problem;
3. The poor had lots of children even when there was no welfare and continue to do so in countries where there is no welfare and where the poor are far poorer than poor people here -- just look at the population explosion in the third world.
So while I agree that there's a problem here, I don't see that it alters the point of the article and I think it's a stretch to la it at the feet of liberals. It might be more accurate to say that the changes in society that made premarital and extramarital sex viable for educated people who use birth control were terribly harmful to many poor people who ended up with babies, but those changes were inevitable and conservatives have been even worse than liberals in failing to establish a new morality that would penalize people for having chidlren out of wedlock but not sex with birth control and (as a backup) abortion.
1. Throwing the dad in jail isn't going to fix this problem, it will simply keep him from supporting his kids and cost the taxpayer money -- more than supporting the kids would;
2. Conservatives oppose birth control, abortion, and sex education, all of which are the best tools we have to reduce this problem;
3. The poor had lots of children even when there was no welfare and continue to do so in countries where there is no welfare and where the poor are far poorer than poor people here -- just look at the population explosion in the third world.
So while I agree that there's a problem here, I don't see that it alters the point of the article and I think it's a stretch to la it at the feet of liberals. It might be more accurate to say that the changes in society that made premarital and extramarital sex viable for educated people who use birth control were terribly harmful to many poor people who ended up with babies, but those changes were inevitable and conservatives have been even worse than liberals in failing to establish a new morality that would penalize people for having chidlren out of wedlock but not sex with birth control and (as a backup) abortion.
1
The "system" if you take even a cursory look at it is designed to make money for lawyers and those who own companies that supply the taxpayer services for the courts and the jails and post sentencing education or rehabilitation services. I expect there are more that I have not listed.
He was not a deadbeat he paid what he had. The problem is the system from the intentionally hamstrung government agency that sent his payment to the wrong account which got him arrested and cost him his $35K year job to the laws that made it impossible for him to ever get caught up.
That government screw up is the direct result of the intentional actions of the GOP meant to make sure Government cannot be effective so they can keep telling the lies they tell about how the tax dollars (that don't go to their corps) are being wasted.
That government screw up is the direct result of the intentional actions of the GOP meant to make sure Government cannot be effective so they can keep telling the lies they tell about how the tax dollars (that don't go to their corps) are being wasted.
Guilt tripping people over aborting pregnancies they can't afford is evidently intended to enslave them for life in the US.
18
Its not even guilt tripping its imposition of religious beliefs using twisted hateful interpretations of science, on them.
So these guys made bad life decisions and I'm supposed to feel sorry because they're being penalized? If I'm talking on my cell phone while driving a car, I get a ticket. It's called the law. If you have children, pay your bills. I'm quite sure if they had inventory of what these people were spending their money on, you could probably find room to pay the child support.
9
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" - Ebenezer Scrooge
5
And that in a nutshell is the problem folks.
If child support system seems to be failing, as is: the foster care system, the welfare system, Is this not evidence that the Government is a terrible replacement for parents ?
As some point we have acknowledge that, parents are indispensable period!
So lets stop pretending that having one parent vs two parents, no parents, are all equally viable choices!
As some point we have acknowledge that, parents are indispensable period!
So lets stop pretending that having one parent vs two parents, no parents, are all equally viable choices!
4
"Government" is not the problem. If you have forgotten We, The People are the Government.
It used to work pretty darn good in places where the People wanted it to and were allowed to use their knowledge (not beliefs) to make it work.
The GOP has intentionally hamstrung it to make the 12 years of lies they told to get reagan elected in 1980 seem true. The news had been showing for years that his accusations and assertions about poor and ineffective government were false and based on a few cases that were not the norm.
It used to work pretty darn good in places where the People wanted it to and were allowed to use their knowledge (not beliefs) to make it work.
The GOP has intentionally hamstrung it to make the 12 years of lies they told to get reagan elected in 1980 seem true. The news had been showing for years that his accusations and assertions about poor and ineffective government were false and based on a few cases that were not the norm.
There is no question that a core question raised in these comments--why do these men sire so many children?--is the right question. But t is only half of the question. Humans do not breed by pathenogenesis. It takes two to tango. One needs to question why women have children with men not capable of fathering responsibly. I suspect that at least in some cases, it is a way for dependent women to try to keep the man. Of course, such a strategy usually ends in disappointment and in some cases, tragedy...good article! PS--why did the article keep referring to "parents" when in fact all anecdotes were of fathers and I suspect the number of women who go to jail for failure to pay child support is an astounding 0%. Still, an important article that sheds light on how well-intended policy has unintended consequences.
4
Whatever the reason, you're right that the responsibility is shared. Society has to address this problem and throwing the fathers in jail when they can't suppor their kids isn't going to do that.
5
There are two sets of rules for men and women. You sure don't hear women's rights groups protesting about the inequality, though, not when the laws and written heavily in the woman's favor. Women want equality only when it is in their best interest. Put down a man and come out on top, all you hear is crickets.
Great question, if you have no clue about American Society or how poverty and its companion ignorance affects people. Your last point about the sexism supports my idea that a lot of these laws are being imposed on the basis of Christian beliefs of the public officials involved and the fake GOP concern for taxpayer money (only when is going back to poor taxpayers) not out of the stated concern for the children.
There has been no trial, no indictment, no autopsy, how can you make claims of fact and knowledge with no evidence except very suspect video and an unreliable witness, totally unexamined, unanalyzed, uninvestigated, unsupported and uncorroborated extrapolations.
Er, there is the little matter of a video showing a fleeing man gunned down in cold blood.
Multiple partners having children means the money goes to support minors that have different Fathers. The courts have to decide which Fathers provide the most support. Giving up the minors for adoption might be a solution.
1
Sadly, the adoption market for older, especially non-white minors is not so robust as it could be.
About 25 years ago, my brother-in-law left my sister with a two-year-old and a newborn infant. He went underground and hasn't paid a penny of child support. She has hired private detectives, found him and had him arrested a few times. He always gets out on bail and immediately goes back on the lam.
There is another side to this coin.
There is another side to this coin.
6
Sure, but I don't think anyone is denying that. The article mentions it and there have been plenty of articles in the Times that focused on the problem of deadbeat dads.
As always, there are good and bad people, victims and victimizers. I think the point here is that the law is creating a terrible situation by jailing them and stripping them of their licenses so that the can't earn, and demanding payments that they can't make. Those who can make the payments and don't are a different situation and jail is an appropriate remedy when all else has failed.
As always, there are good and bad people, victims and victimizers. I think the point here is that the law is creating a terrible situation by jailing them and stripping them of their licenses so that the can't earn, and demanding payments that they can't make. Those who can make the payments and don't are a different situation and jail is an appropriate remedy when all else has failed.
That side of the coin is well known and well documented for decades and in the fore front of public conciousness, the side of the coin this article highlights has just barely come to light and bears examining.
Basically one kind of unfairness has been over corrected to cause another kind of unfairness. Its time to fine tune the system and make it more fair on all sides with minimum collateral damage.
Basically one kind of unfairness has been over corrected to cause another kind of unfairness. Its time to fine tune the system and make it more fair on all sides with minimum collateral damage.
In case you have not figured out by now, poor people are necessary for the Prison-Industrial complex, Military-Industrial complex and the Medical-Industrial complex. How else can you employ millions of middle class people in the Legal, Medical, Police, Welfare or Arms manufacturing business.
Capitalism at it's best, without remorse or compassion.
Capitalism at it's best, without remorse or compassion.
9
Not capitalism - the Prison-Industrial complex is purely a construct of government; it does not fulfill any genuine needs and would not exist in a market-driven economy.
Articles like this should be required reading for anybody applying for a marriage license.
4
Without trying to add anything to the many comments about parents' responsibilities, I just want to observe that Walter Scott said that he fell behind in child support because he had to send the checks to a state agency and the agency misdirected them; that was what put him in jail, caused him to lose a good job and made him unable to pay any more. In other words, in this case the state agency was to blame; then the agency refused to respond to his allegation because that would violate his privacy! Pity anyone who falls under the power of such government.
11
There are other abuses as well. I know a man who was thrown in jail because he gave his wife her child support payment in cash in an emergency situation -- a kid had to go to the dentist -- whereupon she lied, and said she hadn't received it. The woman was in fact a vicious woman who beat their children, but the kids wouldn't make a complaint because as they put it she would then beat them harder. She typically spent the child support payments on things like jewelery for herself while leaving the children without, leaving the father with another dilemma. The only protection the law afforded was an order of protection keeping the woman away from the father's new family, which the mother regularly threatened.
The system as it now exists is truly vicious.
The system as it now exists is truly vicious.
Thomas: Did Mr. Scott not have proof that he sent those checks to the state agency?
So I have lots of thoughts on this. Obviously jailing an employed person who is not hiding their income for child support makes no sense. A simple garnishment of wages seems appropriate.
And it is wrong for the state to jail for lack of child support if the motivation is to "pay back" welfare. There is no excuse to do this to somebody if the money is not helping the child. If she can not work (welfare is not a open-ended pay out these days), the state should pay. (Unless of course the father is quite able to pay and simply doesn't.)
And if you are up for a trial in which you may be jailed, a lawyer must be offered.
However, do we let a non-custodial parent only give so much to a child as permits their subsistence? Don't we consider the child's needs to eat, to wear clothing, to have adequate shelter more important than the parent?
I know women who are given child support sporadically, or to an absurdly small amount. In one case, 100 a month. The father while not rich kept all his income off the books. More than a few higher earners, take a lower wage jobs for 6 months to reduce payments, and then go back up. A non-custodial parent of small children staying home is often cheaper than daycare. So it isn't as simple as it sounds.
And it is wrong for the state to jail for lack of child support if the motivation is to "pay back" welfare. There is no excuse to do this to somebody if the money is not helping the child. If she can not work (welfare is not a open-ended pay out these days), the state should pay. (Unless of course the father is quite able to pay and simply doesn't.)
And if you are up for a trial in which you may be jailed, a lawyer must be offered.
However, do we let a non-custodial parent only give so much to a child as permits their subsistence? Don't we consider the child's needs to eat, to wear clothing, to have adequate shelter more important than the parent?
I know women who are given child support sporadically, or to an absurdly small amount. In one case, 100 a month. The father while not rich kept all his income off the books. More than a few higher earners, take a lower wage jobs for 6 months to reduce payments, and then go back up. A non-custodial parent of small children staying home is often cheaper than daycare. So it isn't as simple as it sounds.
3
Except that the article is NOT about these guys, and as you see the guys you write about, do not go to jail.
The key observation, made almost in passing, is this: "The problem begins with child support orders that, at the outset, can exceed parents’ ability to pay." My ex-wife (who made and makes more than I do) played hardball, but even she was willing to give me a bit of a break on the figure spit out by the formula, because it was so clearly beyond what I could conceivably have paid. Of course, I could have challenged the formula in court, but that would have been expensive and who knows how it might have turned out? Even with the "break," the assessments drove me into bankruptcy. My current wife, my current children, they play second fiddle to the court. Their lives just don't matter as much, apparently. The result has been two starkly different standards of living: upper middle class for my ex-wife and the children I had with her; very-much-lower-middle class for the rest of us. I'm very glad that my older kids are well-provided for, but the system is simply not fair. But then again, what's that saying, "Freedom isn't free"? In my case, the price was high, but still worth it!
38
I'm not really sure what's not fair. You had your first family first and then decided to start a second family knowing you had less income available. Yes, it is, in a way, unfair the children from your second marriage, but certainly not to you. And any unfairness to the children from your second marriage is due to you, not "the system." Did you expect your first wife to accept less money because you took on additional obligations? What if you had purchased a luxurious car instead? I do agree there are changes that can be made to some of these laws, but primarily I think these problems stem from entitlement--people just feel entitled to have children regardless of whether they can afford to care for them.
1
Just as a general point, someone is screwing up if the formula support actually exceeds a person's net disposable income. It could be that not all deductions are being included or something else. The most frequent thing I see is that people get discouraged and forget that when their income or certain expenses change, they can and should file for adjustment.
I don't know if they just don't get it or are embarrassed or afraid, but frequently these guys just let arrearages pile up when they cannot find work even at minimum wage. You cannot go back and raise this as a defense, you have to actively manage your case.
Secondly, nothing prevents opening a case for your other children and then having the cases consolidated so that each child is treated equitably.
I don't know if they just don't get it or are embarrassed or afraid, but frequently these guys just let arrearages pile up when they cannot find work even at minimum wage. You cannot go back and raise this as a defense, you have to actively manage your case.
Secondly, nothing prevents opening a case for your other children and then having the cases consolidated so that each child is treated equitably.
I am disappointed the NYT article failed to mention Title IV-D, the federal law providing huge financial reimbursements to counties when they enforce child support payments through "Friend of the Court." As a former Michigan FOC employee, Carol Rhodes, wrote in her book,"Friend of the Court Enemy of the Family," "My boss regularly reminded us we were the Friend of the Court, not the Friend of the family." Title IV-D created financial incentives to drag out court cases to benefit the budgets of counties and Circuit Courts and is a key issue in the ongoing debate about much needed reform in our nation's family court system. To ignore this issue was, IMO, irresponsible and indicative most people, including journalists, have no idea how dysfunctional our alleged "family" courts have become over the past two decades. We need a civil Gideon law that affords indigent persons representation of counsel in civil contempt hearings and a realistic process for determining support payments.
8
I was a statistician researcher in child support
there are two types of support, one goes to the custodial parent directly, we might feel some sympathy for one parent abandoning the other, and the second is a very limited and partial reimbursement to the taxpayer for public assistance, - and some of us feel differently about that one because those funds do not go the custodial parent for child-related expenses
the usual numerical results are that if we lock up some people the rest get the message, this is called generalized deterrence, which is different from specific deterrence, which means that when we lock someone up THAT person gets the message and pays up
both techniques work some of the time
in our cases some orders, twenty years ago, were as little as 10 or 20 dollars -- to reimburse the taxpayer, yes absent parents who do not support their kids,are 'covered' by the taxpayer, who then seeks recovery, and were not cost effective for enforcement costs, but not all enforcement is costed out, sometimes the appearance of enforcement is necessary
in one jurisdiction, there were several 1000 unenforced child support warrants (backlog); when we went to enforce them the court vacated them all ('too old'), and after issuing 100/ month during no-enforcement, now issued 10/ month with enforcement - so the entire process was a sham, to me,
bleed for whomever you wish, but start with facts
there are two types of support, one goes to the custodial parent directly, we might feel some sympathy for one parent abandoning the other, and the second is a very limited and partial reimbursement to the taxpayer for public assistance, - and some of us feel differently about that one because those funds do not go the custodial parent for child-related expenses
the usual numerical results are that if we lock up some people the rest get the message, this is called generalized deterrence, which is different from specific deterrence, which means that when we lock someone up THAT person gets the message and pays up
both techniques work some of the time
in our cases some orders, twenty years ago, were as little as 10 or 20 dollars -- to reimburse the taxpayer, yes absent parents who do not support their kids,are 'covered' by the taxpayer, who then seeks recovery, and were not cost effective for enforcement costs, but not all enforcement is costed out, sometimes the appearance of enforcement is necessary
in one jurisdiction, there were several 1000 unenforced child support warrants (backlog); when we went to enforce them the court vacated them all ('too old'), and after issuing 100/ month during no-enforcement, now issued 10/ month with enforcement - so the entire process was a sham, to me,
bleed for whomever you wish, but start with facts
4
The bigger story here is the wanton irresponsibility of these "parents". Having multiple children, with no means to support them, is the basis for most of the social problems in America and the world. Instead of subsidizing children, through our tax code, we should penalize people for having them. Make it harder, not easier, to produce a brood and people's behavior will change. If you show up to a social services agency and can't identify the father, the children should be taken by Child Protective Services - you've already demonstrated your irresponsibility. We've got to make hard choices on this issue, or we'll continue down this path of rewarding bad decisions.
13
So the answer has always been - we pay the moms $1,000 to get an abortion. Problem solved???? No?
Wrong audience for your very sensible and logical comment. The NY Times has sob stories for everyone except the REAL victims (the children.)
Men need to realize that their sperm is valuable. They should not just give it away to anyone. Who's fault is it anyway, if you give your sperm to a woman who will haunt you forever for child support (and it may not be your kid).
Yes, it is truly just like the old British debtors' prisons. Then, I doubt there was any such thing as child support; because, divorce was uncommon. But, either way, it does create a vicious circle--a whole that you cannot dig your way oiut of.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
2
I absolutely agree that jailing fathers who cannot pay child support can be harmful and counterproductive and that courts need to consider individual circumstances when rendering judgments. That having been said, legal pressure on fathers, including the threat of jail time, is unfortunately critical for getting many of them to pay. My mother, my brother, and I struggled a lot after my father abandoned our family, and, were it not for the threat of arrest, my father never would have paid child support. Even then, he often let the payments lapse in spite of the fact he could afford it.
For every instance of a father being jailed, leading to counterproductive harm, I bet there are many more cases in which women and children are receiving necessary financial support because of the threat of jailing. As a result, I am all in favor of changing the way the courts deal with indigent fathers, but the pressure on fathers to pay needs to be maintained overall, or else the changes will do more harm than good.
For every instance of a father being jailed, leading to counterproductive harm, I bet there are many more cases in which women and children are receiving necessary financial support because of the threat of jailing. As a result, I am all in favor of changing the way the courts deal with indigent fathers, but the pressure on fathers to pay needs to be maintained overall, or else the changes will do more harm than good.
2
I use to be in charge of withholding child support payments from parent's checks for a large private corporation. To the person, these incredibly irresponsible parents did not want to pay their mandated child support, period. It was all about them and never about the child/children. Of coarse they always say themselves as the victims while they were totally willing to screw up their kid's lives. These people need to know that if they are going to breed, they need to take care of what they bring into the world, even if it means they need to live in poverty. What was consistent is that these people were also irresponsible in the other parts of their lives, why would they not be who they are? Then they blamed their kids, their ex, the judge, society for punishing them for their own actions, hence their rational for greed. They didn't want to get overtime because they didn't want to have to pay more money, so they would hurt everyone due to their misplaced bitterness.
It is really simple, if you want to be so irresponsible to have a child then dump that child on a single mother or father plus the state, hence the taxpayers, you should volunteer for a sterilization after the first child you don't pay support to, or need welfare for, as a "get out of jail free card". That would clear up the issue with having to go to jail more than once and take care of these incredibly irresponsible parents as they are repeat offenders with multiple children.
It is really simple, if you want to be so irresponsible to have a child then dump that child on a single mother or father plus the state, hence the taxpayers, you should volunteer for a sterilization after the first child you don't pay support to, or need welfare for, as a "get out of jail free card". That would clear up the issue with having to go to jail more than once and take care of these incredibly irresponsible parents as they are repeat offenders with multiple children.
5
This is MRS. My husband paid child support to two ex-wives and neither woman allowed him to build any type of relationship with his children today. The children he had with his first wife: oldest is a licensed attorney in New Jersey, Bar No. 025132003. Age 37 This young man has burnt all of his bridges with all of his family because of bitterness caused by what his mother did. Second oldest is waiting for someone to fill his plate and does nothing to help himself; he has also burnt his bridges with his family except for his now millionaire mother who supports him. Age 35. Third son is with 2nd wife and he, too, has burnt all his bridges. Age 32. He paid his child support as required. With Wife #2, he had a lump sum up front settlement and she turned around after 1/1/1993 and went after him for more $$. She worked a low wage job and blew the large sum she received at the divorce in 1988. Does anyone wonder why even if a person is able to pay child support, there is such resentment? The mothers of these children are not required to provide for a portion of their support. Child support is tax free income to their households and is often not used for the benefit of the children. Getting trapped in the low income cycle with no way of climbing out forces some payors to have to scrounge money from their families--which is WRONG. The child support amount should be 50-50 with both parents contributing. Took 2 to make the children; takes 2 to support them.
2
A friend's son has been jailed for non-payment of child support. I have no sympathy for him; he smokes cigarettes and pot ($$$), drinks ($$$), and buys cups of coffee ($). If he can afford all of those things, he could put that amount of money (no matter how small it might be in comparison to what he owes) towards child support. Instead, the almost 50-year-old plays and parties and barely works.
4
Actually, perhaps that's why he drinks and parties and barely works.
If such a man works like a dog and puts himself into an early grave in an attempt to pay full support, it doesn't matter to the courts. If he owes a buck, he's going to jail.
So why bother?
If the world was ending tomorrow, would you show up for work?
This goes for many men in general, FYI, who have decided that the notion of a modern man working himself to death while liberated women can do as they please and have men pay for them isn't for them. So they just sit in their mother's basement and play video games all day. Why not? In the meantime, the standard of living falls down through the floor.
If such a man works like a dog and puts himself into an early grave in an attempt to pay full support, it doesn't matter to the courts. If he owes a buck, he's going to jail.
So why bother?
If the world was ending tomorrow, would you show up for work?
This goes for many men in general, FYI, who have decided that the notion of a modern man working himself to death while liberated women can do as they please and have men pay for them isn't for them. So they just sit in their mother's basement and play video games all day. Why not? In the meantime, the standard of living falls down through the floor.
I was the CFO of a construction business. In Calif they take the drivers licenses away Plus these men go to jail. Now they have no money, or transportation.
The construction is sporadic so we would have weeks when no one would work and these hard, hard working men fell behind in their payments. We would get bombarded with paperwork over and over, then they start charging interest, they keep tacking it on back payments and these men NEVER get caught up.I would say most but of course not all homeless men are people who never got caught up so they give up and become part of the homeless problem. some of their kids are grandparents and these men are still paying child support. It is really sad.
The construction is sporadic so we would have weeks when no one would work and these hard, hard working men fell behind in their payments. We would get bombarded with paperwork over and over, then they start charging interest, they keep tacking it on back payments and these men NEVER get caught up.I would say most but of course not all homeless men are people who never got caught up so they give up and become part of the homeless problem. some of their kids are grandparents and these men are still paying child support. It is really sad.
13
I don't object to paying child support but I think both the conversation and the law and its enforcement have been skewed for years in a way that emphasizes punishment and scorn rather than looking hard at the shortcomings of an economy that makes it very difficult for well-intentioned parents, mothers and fathers alike, to provide for their children on a single income. Mothers who receive the child support due them *may* manage OK, but current child support standards, at least in New York State, appear to be based on a custodial model that assumes that the paying parent (overwhelmingly often the father) has actual physical custody of his children for a couple of nights every other weekend, as it was in the days of yore. Except in instances where Dad lives impractically far from the mother of his kid(s), such arrangements hardly seem typical today, at least among the fathers I know who are raising children in the aftermath of a separation, who take their kids far more often. Since the pullout couch just doesn't cut it when you have your kids 40% of the time, you have to provide housing (and furniture, and food, and carfare, and everything else) pretty much the way you would if you had them full-time, while paying your ex a big chunk of money right off the top of your income. It's really difficult, and it turns a decent income into a marginal or inadequate one.
5
Could someone please try to reconcile (1) a man seriously behind on child support who is (2) driving a jacked-up Mercedes?
Do I recall an initial report that Scott told the officer he was considering buying this car?
Was Scott just bluffing the owner of the Mercedes to get a chance to drive it, without any chance of affording it? Or did he actually have the money to afford this car?
Divorced dads should not be condemned to poverty by child support payments. But behind on payments while driving a jacked-up hip-hop car?
Do I recall an initial report that Scott told the officer he was considering buying this car?
Was Scott just bluffing the owner of the Mercedes to get a chance to drive it, without any chance of affording it? Or did he actually have the money to afford this car?
Divorced dads should not be condemned to poverty by child support payments. But behind on payments while driving a jacked-up hip-hop car?
6
It was a piece of junk with a broken tail-light. Maybe like this for $1,300 buy it now on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mercedes-Benz-E-Class-4-DOORS-/181717362254?forc...
"Hip hop car"?!?
Quote:
"The Obama administration is trying to change some of these policies, proposing to rewrite enforcement rules to require that child support orders be based on actual income and consider the “subsistence needs” of the noncustodial parent"
Child support is most states is generally figured on a percentage of the child's (or children's) needs amount. Each parent's earnings determine what percentage each parent pays. And the amount of time a child spends with each parent enters the equation to some minor degree. The reason the law was changed to include an equation that considered the needs of the child amount, was because non-custodial parents hid their income so well, working off the books for poor parents, and in more sophisticated ways for wealthier parents. And even with the improved calculations (which I certainly hope for the sake of children Obama does not change!), there was really little credit given to the actual parental responsibility/labor of the typical single working parent (usually a mother), and the always constant unexpected costs that the child support allotment and most salaries for single mothers often cannot meet. I say, instead of putting deadbeat fathers in jail (be they rich or poor), put them on a work crew every weekend earning money through state earned work that goes to the child support amount. If these parents are not held responsible in every way as parents, their children will be more likely to end up in jail some day.
"The Obama administration is trying to change some of these policies, proposing to rewrite enforcement rules to require that child support orders be based on actual income and consider the “subsistence needs” of the noncustodial parent"
Child support is most states is generally figured on a percentage of the child's (or children's) needs amount. Each parent's earnings determine what percentage each parent pays. And the amount of time a child spends with each parent enters the equation to some minor degree. The reason the law was changed to include an equation that considered the needs of the child amount, was because non-custodial parents hid their income so well, working off the books for poor parents, and in more sophisticated ways for wealthier parents. And even with the improved calculations (which I certainly hope for the sake of children Obama does not change!), there was really little credit given to the actual parental responsibility/labor of the typical single working parent (usually a mother), and the always constant unexpected costs that the child support allotment and most salaries for single mothers often cannot meet. I say, instead of putting deadbeat fathers in jail (be they rich or poor), put them on a work crew every weekend earning money through state earned work that goes to the child support amount. If these parents are not held responsible in every way as parents, their children will be more likely to end up in jail some day.
3
No statistics here on Black vs White incarceration. But what do you want to bet that it is largely Blacks who are treated as this article describes. And what will you bet that the answer of far too many Southerners is "that's the way those people are."
And so it goes in America; hardly a problem we have that cannot be answered by bigotry and prejudice, to avoid finding a solution.
And so it goes in America; hardly a problem we have that cannot be answered by bigotry and prejudice, to avoid finding a solution.
4
no supporting evidence james... we are speaking of a legal process that disadvantages people who are poor through unintended consequences of
enforcement and appears contributory to a high profile death.
why do you think blacks are more disadvantaged here? In my experience that
is the opposite of the truth - that you are just plain wrong - but i have no facts either... so ill just be quiet.
enforcement and appears contributory to a high profile death.
why do you think blacks are more disadvantaged here? In my experience that
is the opposite of the truth - that you are just plain wrong - but i have no facts either... so ill just be quiet.
1
It sounds like the current situation has flaws that could ruin poor fathers' lives, careers and any possible ability to pay these costs. They have a hard enough time finding jobs, and jail sentences for their debts ruin their chances of finding any job. It's certainly hard for single moms to raise their children with little, if any, help from the children's fathers, but in some cases, it seems like dads are forced into extreme financial burdens that cause collapse for everyone.
2
As long as judges and the police and lawyers and the correctional industry makes money off of them, it's all good. Horrible, isn't it? I say it is.
Cut back on reproduction and it might not be so extreme. Guess the courts and states want to recoup their support payments for the last 100 yrs.
But don't worry, due to these irresponsible acts, the poor and middle class will soon be eating kibble. Hey, it works for dogs and cats.
But don't worry, due to these irresponsible acts, the poor and middle class will soon be eating kibble. Hey, it works for dogs and cats.
How about NOT having children like rabbits with absolutely NO means of knowing how to feed them? I grew up in one of the worst neighborhoods in NY. I saw first hand both women and men making bad choices. Women pushing out babies just to get their boyfriend's side women jealous or wanting a baby because she could dress her in Gucci. Yes - ridiculous! Men getting girls purposely pregnant to prove they're "men" - when they clearly had no interest in the woman.
People, especially poor youth need to understand a baby is a living breathing entity and meant to be taken care of for life! It's not a toy. A child is a gift not only to parents, but to society and I don't want that gift if I have to pay out of my hard earned paycheck because you wanted to dress your child in baby Gucci.
I chose to not have children because at this point I can't afford to feed myself and I'll be damned if I will struggle like my parents did with four kids in the hood.
P.S. - Use protection!
People, especially poor youth need to understand a baby is a living breathing entity and meant to be taken care of for life! It's not a toy. A child is a gift not only to parents, but to society and I don't want that gift if I have to pay out of my hard earned paycheck because you wanted to dress your child in baby Gucci.
I chose to not have children because at this point I can't afford to feed myself and I'll be damned if I will struggle like my parents did with four kids in the hood.
P.S. - Use protection!
9
I have a serious questions regarding the criminal justice system and how it serves me, the middle class wage earner who pays the taxes that support this nonsense. How does it serve me to have me pay to incarcerate individuals for the social crimes? How? What is the cost-benefit ratio to me? The expense is enormous to taxpayers. My questions regard all levels of the bureaucracy of justice including attorneys and judges who have been left to self-supervise the system.
9
It's symptomatic of the overall collapse of the family structure in most of the US. Marriage rates are cratering and divorce rates are sky high. When you can't be bothered to get married or work out your problems and remain married what makes anyone surprised that child support becomes as optional as the rest of the family structure? Someone is paying to support these children and it's often not the people that should be. What's the message? Abandon as many kids as you want with no ramifications or pay what you owe or go to jail? It's that simple.
10
The child support system in this country is a capricious, illogical mechanism that is frequently used to punish fathers for offenses real or imagined that often have no relation to the actual raising of children. It frequently bears no resemblance to reality or practicality.
5
It's sad that it takes the police killings of unarmed African Americans for the media to focus on long-standing injustices caused by corrupt traffic law enforcement (Ferguson); criminalizing trivial transgressions of the law (NYC/Garner), and now this article on the mass incarceration child support scofflaws.
3
Ah yes, it was the corrupt traffic law enforcement that made Michael Brown assault a police officer. It was the corrupt traffic law enforcement in Ferguson which ultimately cost MB his life.
No one who is unprepared for them or who cannot afford them should have children. So much misery and so many social ills would be prevented by reversibly sterilizing everyone at age 12.
5
If the child support system can already take 65% from paychecks, what purpose does jail really serve? If the purpose of jail is to "repay a debt to society", shouldn't letting someone maintain employment to repay a debt to their child take priority?
8
Mr. Scott was test driving a Mercedes Benz when he was pulled over prior to his killing. Good judgment was not his forte, but clearly his priorities were suspect since he owed about 12K to his child support. His options came into focus when he decided to give his sneakers a test drive rather then go to jail.
Of course, the culmination of events, started with a child that was born to parents that did not want it. Clearly, Mr. Scott's child will not be receiving anymore payments from him, and the public will undoubtedly be picking up the tab.
Did society make Mr. Scott become lax in with his birth control options? Perhaps there was no close by abortion clinic to provide a much needed service? My guess is that the 50 year old Mr. Scott just didn't care enough at the time to keep things proper and tidy. He was a free spirit.
I'm going to just blame the Republicans. Mr. Scott is at least like everyone else to lesser degree, he made poor judgments based on his education and societal norms, but he was also human, and we all make mistakes. He failed himself, in a place that does not allow his kind of failure and offers no better options.
Of course, the culmination of events, started with a child that was born to parents that did not want it. Clearly, Mr. Scott's child will not be receiving anymore payments from him, and the public will undoubtedly be picking up the tab.
Did society make Mr. Scott become lax in with his birth control options? Perhaps there was no close by abortion clinic to provide a much needed service? My guess is that the 50 year old Mr. Scott just didn't care enough at the time to keep things proper and tidy. He was a free spirit.
I'm going to just blame the Republicans. Mr. Scott is at least like everyone else to lesser degree, he made poor judgments based on his education and societal norms, but he was also human, and we all make mistakes. He failed himself, in a place that does not allow his kind of failure and offers no better options.
3
I personally think that there should be parenthood licenses issued with default birth control in place, but the problem is that due to the classic abuses of such social darwinism in the past, there is strong political opposition to it becoming a slippery slope towards abuse and they're right. Nonetheless, the problem remains. Simply not addressing the problem doesn't make it go away: We have a social policy that encourages the irresponsible to breed and punishes the responsible. Watch Idiocracy and see that as a warning that the film actually portrayed the future BETTER than it's projected to be: A mass crowded world of the lazy and prolific who lack morals and social conscience and eventually turn upon each other. Look at what many 3rd world hellholes are like today to see the future the west is facing if nothing is done.
At least in Idiocracy, they have Starbucks and Costco.
At least in Idiocracy, they have Starbucks and Costco.
The incarceration is not there to help the child. In many states funds collected from delinquent fathers through the court system go into a fund out of which ALL mothers with deadbeat dads are paid. In other words, the incentive for one woman should actually be rather small to press for payment of support because likely she will not get a whole lot out of it.
1
let us drop the presumptuousness...if you are poor in America, if you have no money in America, you are a dead man. when my grandfather came here from Sicily he was not able to land a job from the locals who hated dark skinned Italians. He was not even
allowed to walk the streets safely. my grandfather joined the Society for the Protection of Italians. Through this
organization he was able to earn enough money to buy a home, send his children to high school and later his funds payed for his grandchildren through college and graduate
school. I am very proud to be his grandson. He faced bigotry
and hatred that only the poor know. Sometimes you need to fight the power any way you can.
allowed to walk the streets safely. my grandfather joined the Society for the Protection of Italians. Through this
organization he was able to earn enough money to buy a home, send his children to high school and later his funds payed for his grandchildren through college and graduate
school. I am very proud to be his grandson. He faced bigotry
and hatred that only the poor know. Sometimes you need to fight the power any way you can.
3
It's not "debtors prison", it's child neglect prison. We're not talking about a MasterCard Bill here folks.
6
Debtors' prison, a real catch-22.
While some of the statements may be true in other jurisdictions, they are not true for Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, child support is calculated using the parties' gross income and subtracting things like child cRe payments, costs of health insurance, costs of dental and vision expenses, and costs of other support obligations; the remainder is what is used to calculate a child support amount. The only instances where income is imputed or attributed is when a parent voluntarily resigns his/her job, refuses to share with the Court what s/he is earning or-in some cases- the Court finds that a parent is deliberately under-employed. Jail is really a last resort.
While it is unfair to jail poor fathers who can't pay, it is also unfair to expect poor mothers to solely provide financially support their children. There are many mothers who are not on public assistance and working, paying exorbitant amounts in day care, and all they want is some assistance from the fathers of their children who often times outright refuse to help. I wish the Times would have presented the view of poor mothers in this article as well as poor fathers.
While it is unfair to jail poor fathers who can't pay, it is also unfair to expect poor mothers to solely provide financially support their children. There are many mothers who are not on public assistance and working, paying exorbitant amounts in day care, and all they want is some assistance from the fathers of their children who often times outright refuse to help. I wish the Times would have presented the view of poor mothers in this article as well as poor fathers.
12
I agree. I've looked at many states after arguments from MRA's and it varies wildly. Also, in most states, one can re-negotiate if income changes, but the problem comes in that people stop paying at all before they ask to renegotiate and then they get in trouble and arrears and all that.
Most states have a little table that shows how much they expect non-custodial parents to pay based on income. They tend to expect a quarter to a third of income, even if it is much smaller than what is required to keep a child well.
Most states have a little table that shows how much they expect non-custodial parents to pay based on income. They tend to expect a quarter to a third of income, even if it is much smaller than what is required to keep a child well.
So women can unilaterally decide if and when they have children and the men have no say in the matter? I would bet that many of these men would rather terminate the pregnancy than have to support a child they do not want. But they get no say, only a lifetime of debt. Why is it that it is the responsibility of both to create a child and the responsibility of both to care and provide for a child, but only the woman gets to decide whether the child will be born? Equality means that both decide. You can't have it both ways. You want equality, then make it equal and give the man a say in whether the child is born. The current system gives women the ability to be as irresponsible as they want and then have someone else foot the bill. And then if he can't - he goes to jail. Yay for equality.
6
The woman says "no" and the man says "yes" to abortion. So who wins? Then what? Ward of the state? Isn't that where we are anyway?
Men can choose whether to use a condom. They can choose whether or not to have sex. They can choose when to have sex and with whom. They can choose to communicate with a partner during all aspects of a relationship. They are not without choices.
Here's a brilliant idea; if you don't want to support a child and don't want to end up with a lifetime of debt use protection. Male condoms are 97% effective at preventing pregnancy when used correctly. If you want a say in whether a child is born there's your chance.
1
In Maricopa county (Phoenix, Az) there is a program where if a person has a job, that person is left out of jail for 12 hours to go to that job. if they do not report back in within 12 hours, they lose that privilege. The last thing Sheriff Joe wants is a provider to lose their job.
68
and does the jail provide an opportunity to shower and change to go to work? transportation to said job? it seems like there are very few jobs where this arrangement would work.
And most potential employers are very understanding when you tell them you can't work overtime because you have to get back to the jail.
Debtors' prison was never a good idea.
15
Actions have consequences. Having a child comes with responsibilities. If you can't afford to support a child DON'T HAVE ONE! PERIOD.
29
Remember that when you lose a job that paid you enough money to have children. There are plenty of responsible parents out there who had children because, at the time they decided to have them they could support them. No one can see the future so we do the best we can with the present we live in.
Maybe you can afford to have a child at the time, then you lose your job or get injured or sick. Not everyone has your omniscience to see ahead.
1
Or get shot in the back?
Oh, don't even. Do not even. Not unless you're willing to cheerfully propose more effective property seizures and work camps for these guys.
The average child support order in my state, when I was divorced, was about $300/month, which covers little of the cost of raising a small child while working. Guess who's responsible for the rest? But we don't hear the Times talking about the unfairness of child support orders that don't cover half the cost of raising a child or various welfare systems that are punitive while turned on, and shut off after two years, also leaving these mothers holding the bag.
I hear tremendous complaining from men with HHIs in the low six digits who are obliged to pay $1200 monthly towards the rearing of two children, and talk about how it's breaking them. What's breaking them is their terrible money management skills and inability to keep an eye on their bank balances. My own ex doesn't make $100K, but still managed to leave our kid feeling terribly guilty about being expensive while he, living as a single guy in a low cost-of-living area, was making far more than the median HHI.
When single mothers don't have enough money to raise our children, do you know what we do? We work more jobs. We sleep less. We lose our homes (and the children's neighborhoods and schools and friends) and live with family. The buck, dear writers, stops with us. So do not, do not, try to tell me how unfortunate these guys are who can't make their support pittances.
The average child support order in my state, when I was divorced, was about $300/month, which covers little of the cost of raising a small child while working. Guess who's responsible for the rest? But we don't hear the Times talking about the unfairness of child support orders that don't cover half the cost of raising a child or various welfare systems that are punitive while turned on, and shut off after two years, also leaving these mothers holding the bag.
I hear tremendous complaining from men with HHIs in the low six digits who are obliged to pay $1200 monthly towards the rearing of two children, and talk about how it's breaking them. What's breaking them is their terrible money management skills and inability to keep an eye on their bank balances. My own ex doesn't make $100K, but still managed to leave our kid feeling terribly guilty about being expensive while he, living as a single guy in a low cost-of-living area, was making far more than the median HHI.
When single mothers don't have enough money to raise our children, do you know what we do? We work more jobs. We sleep less. We lose our homes (and the children's neighborhoods and schools and friends) and live with family. The buck, dear writers, stops with us. So do not, do not, try to tell me how unfortunate these guys are who can't make their support pittances.
52
As a woman, you're the only person who decides to create life. It's really simple, If you can't afford it, don't do it. Forcing men into a life time of poverty and jail because you wanted a baby is disgusting.
So forced labor camps are the solution? How is prison going to help the guy, that you divorced, help pay for the kid that he didn't want to begin with? If you don't want or can't support your kids give the custody to the guy you kicked out of his house. And don't you ever steal sperm from a condom again without his knowledge. Speaking of making assumptions. ..
1
Free birth control, free abortions, no child support. It is a crime to be poor in this country. It is also foolish to expect people to act responsibly. We wonder why children grow up in poverty, and blame the economy. Never do we wonder why people have children when they cannot afford to support themselves. Oh, the man lost a good job through no fault of his own, the normal come-back, sometimes true, usually not. Walter Scott had 4 children, but how many could he really afford to support, even if he kept the job he had at the time?
There have been poor people for a long time, as long as mankind itself. But they didn't always walk away from their children and refuse to support their children. If refusing to support a man's children is so understandable and acceptable, then why did Walter Scott's wife or girl friend go to court to get child support? Why was she trying to make him pay child support? She must have thought that Walter Scott bore some responsibility to support his children.
There have been poor people for a long time, as long as mankind itself. But they didn't always walk away from their children and refuse to support their children. If refusing to support a man's children is so understandable and acceptable, then why did Walter Scott's wife or girl friend go to court to get child support? Why was she trying to make him pay child support? She must have thought that Walter Scott bore some responsibility to support his children.
11
Life is complicated. In some areas a local child support agency goes to court to request child support on behalf of the children. I know a woman who placed her children with her mother when she was detained in jail. Her mother asked for child support from the city agency. The city agency then started the clock on the amount that the woman would owe after she finished her time in jail. While her mother never visited her in jail she was always asking for money from her incarcerated daughter. Dysfunctional families often come from generations of financial distress. Nothing is simple in family relations.
Another example of different readings of the Bible, viz. Micah 6:8. There is a difference between "doing justice" and "acting justly." And "love mercy" ... who cares about mercy?
The judge mentioned in the last paragraph is a disgrace to the judiciary. I wonder if he treats police and prosecutors the same way for Brady violations.
15
Conversation in a cell in the Berkeley, California lockup, 1967:
“What are you in for?”
“Not paying my child support.”
“I don’t get it.”
“If you go to jail, you can’t get a job, if you can’t get a job, you can’t pay child support, so then you get arrested again and have to go back to jail.”
“That doesn’t sound like a good situation to be in.”
“What are you in for?”
“Not paying my child support.”
“I don’t get it.”
“If you go to jail, you can’t get a job, if you can’t get a job, you can’t pay child support, so then you get arrested again and have to go back to jail.”
“That doesn’t sound like a good situation to be in.”
24
Greatest country in the world.
The government gets more money each time they run you through the system.
They get your court fees, they get tax dollars. If they throw you in jail, they charge you for being in jail and they collect more taxes from you being in jail.
It's an industry, not a social program.
They get your court fees, they get tax dollars. If they throw you in jail, they charge you for being in jail and they collect more taxes from you being in jail.
It's an industry, not a social program.
As w their Style stories, the Times is VERY late reporting this. This has been going on for years. I had my drivers license suspended over child support payments -- while living in upstate NY. (Hitchhiking in upstate NY ain't what it used to be. Even with a carpenter's work belt.)
Everywhere in America, beware of mantras. They are always nonsense. And the child support racket has two beauts: "Deadbeat Dads." And "in the interests of the children."
True Deadbeat Dads I believe are few and far between, and I have never seen the court act "in the interests of the children."
Everywhere in America, beware of mantras. They are always nonsense. And the child support racket has two beauts: "Deadbeat Dads." And "in the interests of the children."
True Deadbeat Dads I believe are few and far between, and I have never seen the court act "in the interests of the children."
21
I agree. During my divorce, my spouse's attorney used all the college funds I had saved for my son to cover for his inflated legal fees "in the benefit of the children". Now, he does not have enough saving to go to college. This was supported by the corrupt presiding judge, who threatened me with contempt if I would not free the funds to pay. It was in Houston, TX. The justice system in this country is rot to the core.
How could putting a father, who depends on a weekly paycheck, in jail resolve a problem of support for his child? We are not talking about men of wealth who cal live very well on their assets without a paycheck.
What ever happened to court ordered garnishment of a paycheck? Would that not make much more sense than prison and the devastating affect that has on one's ability to earn a paycheck?
What ever happened to court ordered garnishment of a paycheck? Would that not make much more sense than prison and the devastating affect that has on one's ability to earn a paycheck?
19
I am married to a wonderful man who dearly loves his daughter from a previous marriage, and misses her every day she isn't with us. We have our finances sorted out now, but there were a few years where he was behind on child support to his ex-wife. He is a disabled veteran but hadn't completed all of the (onerous) paperwork with the VA, and he just let the bills pile up. He almost had his license suspended several times. It was terrifying to think he might go to jail even though we paid everything we could afford. One aspect of this issue that doesn't get addressed is what happens when people move around. My husband moved for work and family. His ex also remarried and moved to several states in several years. So no jurisdiction (including the original county of the divorce) was willing to re-hear the case. We were stuck in limbo with the bills climbing, unable to afford lawyers... Only due to a windfall (one of my investments did really well) did we get to a place where we could pay the back amount and make his monthly payment. It's still more than we can afford but I view it as keep-him-out-of-jail money.
52
The reported facts in this article do not add up. In child support enforcement, a court only wants compliance with the support order. It is illogical that the court would jail an employed obligor, thus causing the person to lose their job and not be able to pay child support. Further, county governments do not want expensive jail space taken up by low level crimes.
2
In some jurisictions, they don't see logic like this. And in many, many going after child support to "pay back" welfare or Wic etc. is common. The latter practice needs to end. Many women go after a problematic paying father for child support via the state only to discover only the state gets money so they are worse off than before.
The biggest problem in family court is that it is left up to the judge so that in one county a mother can be forced to permit visitation to an alcoholic, rarely paying father who threatened her life and in the very next jurisdiction over a father's rights can be cut because the father cursed the mother. We need a clear, policy with far less discretion granted the judge, far more nuance and far more alternatives when matters go off the book.
The biggest problem in family court is that it is left up to the judge so that in one county a mother can be forced to permit visitation to an alcoholic, rarely paying father who threatened her life and in the very next jurisdiction over a father's rights can be cut because the father cursed the mother. We need a clear, policy with far less discretion granted the judge, far more nuance and far more alternatives when matters go off the book.
It might seem illogical, but I can assure you that it happens on an almost daily basis, including at the courthouse where I work. I've long thought that it seems counterproductive, but they seem to think it's worth it as a way to get some people to pay. Unfortunately, they don't seem to consider the many people who can't pay, and who get stuck in a neverending cycle of prison followed by trying to get back on their feet with another job, only to be hauled back into court and jail when they can't make enough, if they can find a job at all.
Interesting article. It affirms the way we should teach our Male children about sex. Sex is not free, you are not entitled to Sex. Women are not objects to conquer. Sex could have consequences. Most of these cases should not be societies problems. The only way to break the cycle of poverty is to instill the philosophies of success. Among those is sacrifice, discipline, and respect for women. One moment of passion could mean a lifetime of responsibility, or, as in this case, the loss of your freedom.
11
Let's not leave out that women should probably not have babies they cannot support either. Not sure why the onus of providing money is always on the man. We live in a equal society right?
"The only way to break the cycle of poverty..." is for governments to provide equal opportunity for children (education, healthcare, etc.) which this country sorely needs. It is the only way to increase our chances of breaking the cycle of lost generations. Anything that touches the 40 families who own half of the wealth in this country is call wealth redistribution, socialism and the like. I call it lets make them pay their fair taxes, like the rest of us.
Unfortunately, it's hard to craft a law that functions as a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer. It makes perfect sense for the law to only require jail for those who can pay but choose not to. But how do you define "can pay?" A dad who is working under the table will look like he's unemployed to the system. A dad who prefers to work part time and live cheaply with his parents/girlfriend will look like a poor, underemployed person. A dad who declines higher paying work because it comes with worse hours or working conditions will look more poor than he really is. How is the law supposed to account for these real life situations? It can't. And in the meantime, dad's children need food, clothes, medical care and maybe an occasional dance class or new baseball glove. For every well intentioned dad who is unfairly ruined by this system there is another one who only supports his kids because it's easier than going to jail.
The real solution is for people to only have children when they have both the intention and a reasonable prospect of being able to support them. That seems like an obvious statement but ... it doesn't seem to be the case for many of our fellow citizens.
The real solution is for people to only have children when they have both the intention and a reasonable prospect of being able to support them. That seems like an obvious statement but ... it doesn't seem to be the case for many of our fellow citizens.
18
I agree with this editorial that flexibility is needed. Now, what will be the downside of being more flexible? We have heard from one side in the debate. Is there another?
1
I would also agree that there needs to be some flexibility. Having said this, there are many real, actual children on the other side of those payments who do without basics - nutritious food, clothes and shoes that fit, coats, heat, medical care, pencils and paper for school, etc - when they don't receive child support.
My sister's ex only pays child support when he's being threatened with jail time. He owns his own business, so his wages can't be garnished. My sister works full time, and in the end she and her kids live with our parents because without the child support, she wasn't making ends meet. Her other option, and this is the only option for many women who lack family resources fall back on, was public assistance.
Children of men who don't pay child support are far, far more likely to end up on various forms of public assistance.
My sister's ex only pays child support when he's being threatened with jail time. He owns his own business, so his wages can't be garnished. My sister works full time, and in the end she and her kids live with our parents because without the child support, she wasn't making ends meet. Her other option, and this is the only option for many women who lack family resources fall back on, was public assistance.
Children of men who don't pay child support are far, far more likely to end up on various forms of public assistance.
I thought debtors' prisons were left behind in the Victorian era.
I would have thought that attachment of earnings would be the normal way to get money from absent fathers. Incarcerating men and destroying their earning capacity seems the triumph of revenge over practicality.
I would have thought that attachment of earnings would be the normal way to get money from absent fathers. Incarcerating men and destroying their earning capacity seems the triumph of revenge over practicality.
6
What has not been said in any of these comments is that fathers and mothers should share custody and then no one would be paying the other to support the children as both parents would be supporting them. Fathers should pay for their children but they should also raise them and live with them equally unless by mutual agreement.
6
Well as a liberal I part company with the party line on child support. You bring a kid into this world, you pay for it. You don't want to bring into this world, wear a condom. The vast majority of men who don't pay child support don't pay it because they don't want to, they want to keep doing what they want to do even if they litter the world going from one woman to another having children they won't pay for and leaving the children and the women left with the children to poverty and all its ills.
No, no cop has any cause to shoot a man in the back. That's murder. But no man has a right to have a child and not pay a good share of what it costs to raise that child from day one and every day.
Let's not justify being a lousy father or no father at all with running away from a bad cop.
No, no cop has any cause to shoot a man in the back. That's murder. But no man has a right to have a child and not pay a good share of what it costs to raise that child from day one and every day.
Let's not justify being a lousy father or no father at all with running away from a bad cop.
34
Your statement "The vast majority of men who don't pay child support don't pay it because they don't want to" is based on what data or evidence?
I don't see any evidence for that statement. Objective observation and conversations with hundreds of divorced-against-their-will fathers tell me that most men (95-97%) want to pay to support their children. It's the huge amounts that are required, even when a man is unemployed, that lead to despair and tragedy, like a father of four being shot in the back. How exactly is this exercise of state power going to benefit the four fatherless children?
I don't see any evidence for that statement. Objective observation and conversations with hundreds of divorced-against-their-will fathers tell me that most men (95-97%) want to pay to support their children. It's the huge amounts that are required, even when a man is unemployed, that lead to despair and tragedy, like a father of four being shot in the back. How exactly is this exercise of state power going to benefit the four fatherless children?
You should definitely have a talk with all the doctors who refuse to tie tubes, and give vasectomies to young people.
Yet no one cares about the record number of children growing up in poverty because one or both parents decides that feeding and clothing their children is just not fun any more and they want their freedom to go do it all over again with someone else.
Remember the deadbeat dad congressman? He never went to jail and he spent his children's support money on his affairs and his election campaign. He could afford to pay but decided that he didn't want those kids any more and went had more with another woman. None of that bothered the people who voted for him, they don't care any more about kids than the man in the moon.
It is the parent's responsibility to support the kids they put on this earth and if they refuse to do it the children suffer, it is best not to have them in the first place if they have no intention of sticking around for 18 years, it is not the kid's fault that they were born to irresponsible parents!
Remember the deadbeat dad congressman? He never went to jail and he spent his children's support money on his affairs and his election campaign. He could afford to pay but decided that he didn't want those kids any more and went had more with another woman. None of that bothered the people who voted for him, they don't care any more about kids than the man in the moon.
It is the parent's responsibility to support the kids they put on this earth and if they refuse to do it the children suffer, it is best not to have them in the first place if they have no intention of sticking around for 18 years, it is not the kid's fault that they were born to irresponsible parents!
15
I do not think this is about,if a person should be responsible and take care of their children,paying child support,being there,etc. I think we all agree on these things. The problem is the way it is enforced and why it is enforced. This is big business! These child support offices draw huge amounts of money from our Social Security pool. Up until this system,or scam,whichever you choose to call it, was added to SSI act, states or county attorneys did not make an attempt to collect. This is very profitable.
This is insanity. The courts should take a pragmatic approach and do whatever will help poor fathers pay a reasonable amount. How about ordering job training, job placement services, or classes on budgeting, instead of prison and suspended licenses?
8
I can never support those who fail to pay the Child Support for whatever reason. Mating, marrying, enjoying, procreating, divorcing, mating, enjoying marrying, procreating and divorcing doesn't amount to life at all. I don't know what to call it.
A person, who indulges in such things should know very well what it means to be responsible and what it means to take care of the children. They have no business whatsoever to crush the bud as they please. Children are no dirty linen to be thrown out and made to suffer endlessly.
These rules are made only to protect the hapless divorced wives mostly for bringing some kind of financial security to the family that includes children.
Yes, rules might look harsh but they are made like that to displine the irresponsible people.
Isn't it better not to marry and remain single lifelong rather than escape responsibility somehow.
A person, who indulges in such things should know very well what it means to be responsible and what it means to take care of the children. They have no business whatsoever to crush the bud as they please. Children are no dirty linen to be thrown out and made to suffer endlessly.
These rules are made only to protect the hapless divorced wives mostly for bringing some kind of financial security to the family that includes children.
Yes, rules might look harsh but they are made like that to displine the irresponsible people.
Isn't it better not to marry and remain single lifelong rather than escape responsibility somehow.
13
I was wondering when someone would write this analysis after Scott's murder. I believe it is time to end this legal requirement for child support. Biological parents should have no financial obligation to offspring unless it is fulfilled willingly. It is a tragic situation when people have children and abandon them, but that does not warrant prison. The men and women who make these choices are foolish and selfish, but they are not criminals.
8
Abandonment is one of the most damaging things you can do to a child and affects our society immensely. It often leads to depression, addiction and suicide. Most criminals started from a childhood of abandonment. We had a friend who died a few years ago from addiction. He could never get over his dad's complete abandonment for a "new family". His father never showed for the funeral.
I'm sorry but it's pretty clear to me that if you cannot afford to have children (married or not) then these men should keep it in their pants. I think jail is a good solution. It puts fear into men who dodge supporting the children they produced. What other incentive is it for a man to provide child support? What punishment is there for them if they don't? They need to get up and get a job and take the responsibility. The mother is taking on responsibilities and why should the man get away with doing nothing and having an excuse to say they are poor or cannot find a job. You wanted to have a child - now pay for it.
28
Last time I checked, it was the woman who had the child. Women have children outside of a man's wishes all the time.
At the risk of stating the obvious, men are nothing thinking about children when they decide to have sex. They're thinking about sex.
What this really speaks to is the need for an economic component to sex educations for all students: Boys: If you choose to have unprotected sex or have a birth control failure, you are financially responsible for that child even if you opt out of the child's life. For 18 years. Failure to pay may mean imprisonment. Girls: If you choose to have unprotected sex or have a birth control failure, you are financially responsible for that child unless you give up that child for adoption. The father will most likely be required to pay a mere fraction of what it costs to raise a child, and if he doesn't cooperate, as many don't, you'll spend years trying to chase him down. Regardless - don't count on it, or your child will suffer.
What this really speaks to is the need for an economic component to sex educations for all students: Boys: If you choose to have unprotected sex or have a birth control failure, you are financially responsible for that child even if you opt out of the child's life. For 18 years. Failure to pay may mean imprisonment. Girls: If you choose to have unprotected sex or have a birth control failure, you are financially responsible for that child unless you give up that child for adoption. The father will most likely be required to pay a mere fraction of what it costs to raise a child, and if he doesn't cooperate, as many don't, you'll spend years trying to chase him down. Regardless - don't count on it, or your child will suffer.
Did you ever consider that a women might be the aggressor and seek out the object that was to be kept in the pants? Parenthood is always (sans rape) a two way experience. And what if the woman wanted the child -- do your views change? Where is her responsibility to get a job and have the father stay at home and raise the child? Can he seek support payments from her because he wants to raise the child?
As a father with 3 children I can not imagine allowing them to be subject to abject poverty and being disadvantaged for life because I would not share my income. This story is one sided.
29
This pattern begins in middle and high school. A longitudinal study of 790 Baltimore low income public school students, first-graders in 1982, found that by age eighteen, forty percent of the girls had babies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/29/what-your-1st...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/29/what-your-1st...
12
I'm astonished by many of the responses here. "I've no sympathy";"not living up to societal responsibility" etc. This article is about POOR people and it's about poor men of color (particularly black men) who, let's be frank, do not get the benefit of the doubt in a court of law. Increasingly I'm observing cops and society at large (yes, I'm talking to you "sophisticated" NYX reader) failing to distinguish a criminal case from a civil case. Child support is a civil case. Only in rare, anomalous cases should anyone be going to jail. Currently, in more than half the households in the US females are the bread winners. Unemployment is far more prevalent among men than it is for women, and exponentially worse for black men, and worse still for young black men. This is not a "personal accountability" problem, it's a social and economic problem. This is making being poor a crime. And it is sick and twisted. We talk a lot recently about how the internet has destroyed empathy, sympathy and the like. Well, here it is again.
205
Jackson - you mention the unemployment problem for black males. This problem has been exponentially exasperated by the massive influx of illegal aliens from south of the border, the overwhelming majority of them being unskilled and poorly educated. The sheer supply of these illegals has been a major reason for black unemployment. It's basic economics.
I wonder if you've supported and voted for politicians who have allowed this massive invasion of our borders. My gut tells me that you have. If you have, then you need to look in the mirror and take some responsibility for the plight of the black male unemployment problem of today.
You can't have it both ways.
I wonder if you've supported and voted for politicians who have allowed this massive invasion of our borders. My gut tells me that you have. If you have, then you need to look in the mirror and take some responsibility for the plight of the black male unemployment problem of today.
You can't have it both ways.
I suppose in a perfect world, being poor would not be such a big disadvantage. But this is not a perfect world. The cild of a poor person has to eat, needs shelter, needs nurturing and care from male and female role models. Being poor should not give you the right to to bring children into the world that you know you canot take care of in any meaningful way. And I have enough respect for poor people to believew tha tthey get this.
As for making a civil matter criminal-this represents a misundersatnding. Whenever one is ordered to do something by a court of competent jurisdiction, failure to do that thing is considered contempt of court. A person held in contempt can be held until they are willing to comply. And yes, I get that this can work a hardship. But generally, the victim is being pursued not by a vindictive govt, but by the mother of their children-whom you would disempower.
As for making a civil matter criminal-this represents a misundersatnding. Whenever one is ordered to do something by a court of competent jurisdiction, failure to do that thing is considered contempt of court. A person held in contempt can be held until they are willing to comply. And yes, I get that this can work a hardship. But generally, the victim is being pursued not by a vindictive govt, but by the mother of their children-whom you would disempower.
Thank you for your clear-headed analysis and empathy. About the internet though, some people were always thus.
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
For many and various reasons this Great American Flag Waving Country hates, hates, hates the poor--- chief among them is racism, fear that we may become one of them, I got mine, you get yours, etc. Apparently we feel Lady Justice is blind not because she is fair but because she is indeed blind.
10
Yes, sure, racism. I recall their was a study of children born out of wedlock in turn of the century NYC, comparing ethnic groups. The most egregious were the Irish. So much for your racism theory.
Some people think that seeing a racial element in all controversies is a display of insight and sensitivity, often it's a sign of shallowness.
Some people think that seeing a racial element in all controversies is a display of insight and sensitivity, often it's a sign of shallowness.
A struggling parent misses a bill and we throw them in jail.
A banker crashes the world economy and walks home with millions.
What happened to our country and is there still any chance to reverse it?
A banker crashes the world economy and walks home with millions.
What happened to our country and is there still any chance to reverse it?
33
It is INSANE to put men in jail for their failure to provide child support, especially given the terrible conditions of US prisons that have been described in the Times and other major newspapers. Prisons should be for violent criminals that actually pose a risk to society. There must be a better way of dealing with child support issues in a civilized society!
16
Like what?
As more facts come out, there is often a much different story than first appears. We may never know why Mr. Scott ran, but fear of arrest and loss of his job might well be a reason. Now, he is dead.
2
On one hand, sending men to jail for being unable to meet their financial obligations is a form of debtor's prison, which in its day also was stupid.
On the other hand, it's time that men stop procreating when they seem uninterested in the children's mother or in the children. It is easy (and fun!) to father a child; it's a difficult slog to parent one. Impregnating women is not a badge of manhood.
For the mothers, too, it's time to stop having babies when they themselves are uneducated and unemployed. Time to use birth control.
This weekend in New York City alone we had twenty shootings. And the temperature hit only in the high 70s. Wait until summer gets hot. Mr. de Blasio might not like "stop and frisk," but he'll have to do something.
Anyone wonder what sorts of parents the shooters had? And for how many generations?
On the other hand, it's time that men stop procreating when they seem uninterested in the children's mother or in the children. It is easy (and fun!) to father a child; it's a difficult slog to parent one. Impregnating women is not a badge of manhood.
For the mothers, too, it's time to stop having babies when they themselves are uneducated and unemployed. Time to use birth control.
This weekend in New York City alone we had twenty shootings. And the temperature hit only in the high 70s. Wait until summer gets hot. Mr. de Blasio might not like "stop and frisk," but he'll have to do something.
Anyone wonder what sorts of parents the shooters had? And for how many generations?
9
It's mind boggling how governments know how to (instantly) exchange information about those who are mandated by society to pay up (among some other antiquated political mandates) yet seem to be completely blind to any (inflicted) prohibition to actually execute a for profit life.
If the kids and dads in question are even allowed to interact with each other… scorned egos and all.
Ain't society awesome?
If the kids and dads in question are even allowed to interact with each other… scorned egos and all.
Ain't society awesome?
How could this be, all these 'deadbeat dads'? Well, it was inevitable: The 90's, when these "deadbeat dad" laws were enacted, were an easy money era. Americans were working and playing hard, right up to 2008. Then, the house of cards came down and only the super wealthy were left standing. This is yet another example, from health care to education, housing to criminal justice of the slow demise of the middle class.
5
This is a result of criminalizing what should be a civil matter.
But then, it was done for women and children and what that is done for women and children could possibly be wrong?
Decisions to fertilize an egg with the seed of an irresponsible or resource less character bears consequences for the holder of the egg and the offspring that the law does not have the power to ameliorate. Mating decisions have consequences and society has not the capacity to hold the horney harmless.
The degree to which this has become an enslavement of men is illustrated when courts jail men for refusing to support children proven by DNA to not be theirs.
But then, it was done for women and children and what that is done for women and children could possibly be wrong?
Decisions to fertilize an egg with the seed of an irresponsible or resource less character bears consequences for the holder of the egg and the offspring that the law does not have the power to ameliorate. Mating decisions have consequences and society has not the capacity to hold the horney harmless.
The degree to which this has become an enslavement of men is illustrated when courts jail men for refusing to support children proven by DNA to not be theirs.
10
County attorneys collect huge amounts of money from the social security pool for trying to collect child support,I think it is $2.00 for every dollar collected. This is why they go after people so hard. Some of this money even goes into the judges retirement fund. So,it is a way for these offices to pull money from your social security(it is everyone's social security,not just the person who owes the support and people wonder why SSI is going broke). This way county attorneys are getting paid a second time,for a job they are suppose to do to begin with. We are not talking nickels and dimes,this is hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This is Title iv of the SSI act. It is worth more to prosecute someone who owes child support than go after a criminal. After all,justice has become big business in this country.
3
the cycle will continue until we have one of the future generations understand they are responsible. there i so much work out there but the buck stops with you! take all these men teach them to drive truck making 70K per year with hard work they would not have time-energy to have multiple relationships.
10
Mr. Scott owed over $18,000 in back child support. Among the many bad choices he made was buying a used Mercedes and not using the money for his children. That would explain why he failed to register the vehicle and was suspected of driving a stolen vehicle. Again he made very poor choices, and he gets no sympathy for those decisions.
43
So his poor decisions somehow made his murder more understandable?
I would love to afford a Mercedes Benz but have other responsibilities I must meet. We would all be in the poorhouse if we bought luxury goods to our hearts content. Very immature young man and selfish too.
We need more jails if all people that make bad descisions are jailed.
I was a single mother raising a child and working my way through college. My former husband did not pay child support, saying it made him "mad" to write the check. After two court orders, his sports car was impounded outside the bar, when he would meet his friends on Friday nights. His car had to be impounded twice before he paid. Six months after he started paying, through the court, he sued me for custody. He told me that he could save himself a lot of money if he had custody. I retained custody and he grudgingly paid child support, until our daughter turned 18.
To make child support an issue in Mr. Scott's death is a sad commentary on how this country views the responsibility of raising children. Non custodial parents, male or female, have a responsibility to share In the support of the children.
The non custodial parent who won't make an effort to pay child support, generally has made the choice that his/her standard of living is more important than that of his/her children.
It saddens me that some noncustodial parents make choices about child support that are not I the best interest of their children and ultimately themselves.
To make child support an issue in Mr. Scott's death is a sad commentary on how this country views the responsibility of raising children. Non custodial parents, male or female, have a responsibility to share In the support of the children.
The non custodial parent who won't make an effort to pay child support, generally has made the choice that his/her standard of living is more important than that of his/her children.
It saddens me that some noncustodial parents make choices about child support that are not I the best interest of their children and ultimately themselves.
18
The issue is not whether non-custodial parents should pay child support. They certainly should. The issue is whether they should be incarcerated for failure to pay. And, clearly there is a problem with this type of punishment as, ironically, it only weakens their ability to pay.
Most of the men I know have no problem paying child support. They want to support their children! It is when the state combines Alimony and Child Support or the parent is making too little to pay the full amount is where men get into trouble. Regardless, Warrants and DL suspensions should be reserved ONLY for the most egregious cases, like your ex husband of fathers who are not meeting their Child Support responsibilities.
Recently, they discovered the Higgs Boson and each one has a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2.
That is a good approximation of the amount of sympathy I have for Mr. Scott.
That is a good approximation of the amount of sympathy I have for Mr. Scott.
8
I don't understand, please explain?
In this country, it is a crime to be poor.
Visitors to places like Colonial Williamsburg shake their heads over the existence of "debtor's prison" as if such a thing were a relic of the barbarous past. Few realize that very many people are behind bars now because they cannot pay a debt: child support, or maybe a fine and court costs.
In regard to the latter, the 18th century was perhaps kinder. No one went to debtor's prison unless the creditor demanded it. The law did not insist upon, nor could a judge impose it otherwise. If the debtor was the state (or crown), and you could not pay a fine and court costs, you did not go to jail at all, losing your job perhaps, and emerging still owing the money. In those days you got 10 to 39 lashes at the public whipping post, from which you could, in most cases, recover in a few days, and probably work in the meantime. And the whipping discharged the debt for good.
We flinch at the idea of such punishments, but are we really kinder today?
Visitors to places like Colonial Williamsburg shake their heads over the existence of "debtor's prison" as if such a thing were a relic of the barbarous past. Few realize that very many people are behind bars now because they cannot pay a debt: child support, or maybe a fine and court costs.
In regard to the latter, the 18th century was perhaps kinder. No one went to debtor's prison unless the creditor demanded it. The law did not insist upon, nor could a judge impose it otherwise. If the debtor was the state (or crown), and you could not pay a fine and court costs, you did not go to jail at all, losing your job perhaps, and emerging still owing the money. In those days you got 10 to 39 lashes at the public whipping post, from which you could, in most cases, recover in a few days, and probably work in the meantime. And the whipping discharged the debt for good.
We flinch at the idea of such punishments, but are we really kinder today?
10
"In this country, it is a crime to be poor."
Absolutely true. Which can make even looking for a job a criminal act. The lowest of the low -- substitute teachers, bus drivers, pedicab drivers; you know... -- are the ones who have to give fingerprints and undergo criminal background checks. Why? Because the government figures those (losers) are the ones more inclined toward revolution, and the government wants to keep very close tabs on them, us.
Absolutely true. Which can make even looking for a job a criminal act. The lowest of the low -- substitute teachers, bus drivers, pedicab drivers; you know... -- are the ones who have to give fingerprints and undergo criminal background checks. Why? Because the government figures those (losers) are the ones more inclined toward revolution, and the government wants to keep very close tabs on them, us.
The author of this article makes a Herculean effort to use the pronouns "people" and "parents" to describe those who are injured by these discriminatory laws. The author does not want to say "MEN" because doing so supports the notion that there is a class of men deserving of protection, which is of course anathema to liberal intellectuals, whose politics don't include men, especially white men.
The problem, of course, is not that women have too much power to obtain child support orders. The problem is the ease with which they can obtain a divorce.
Marxists will explain that the fathers should not be responsible fit the children-—that the state should raise them and bear the cost. Eliminate child support This eliminAtes transmission of wealth through families, so as to undermine capitalism.
The authors may not even realize this is the foundation and goal of the philosophy they support.
The problem, of course, is not that women have too much power to obtain child support orders. The problem is the ease with which they can obtain a divorce.
Marxists will explain that the fathers should not be responsible fit the children-—that the state should raise them and bear the cost. Eliminate child support This eliminAtes transmission of wealth through families, so as to undermine capitalism.
The authors may not even realize this is the foundation and goal of the philosophy they support.
4
I'm a volunteer Guardian ad Litem (court-appointed advocate for children removed from the home due to abuse and/or neglect) in South Carolina. I'm a constant witness to people who can't or won't pay court-ordered child support to DSS while their children are in custody. They all claim that they can't afford it. If that's true, they couldn't afford to have the children in the first place. Their sense of responsibility ended long before the child was conceived.
95
I'd like to add: how many of those people whining "I can't pay!" have premium cable TV....the latest smart phone....nice clothing....upscale cars....fancy sneakers....and always have money for cigarettes, liquor, Lotto tickets and the like?
1
Are you really implying that the poor shouldn't have children in the first place? Everyone should have the ability to conceive, love and support children. Unfortunately, the increasing wealth gap in the US is decreasing the number of parents, single or otherwise, from having the financial capability to support children. The poor often cannot even have the luxury to volunteer for organizations like you do, as they have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. I find it appalling that people easily view the poor as second class citizens
Ditto for the mom who can't support the child either
America's destructive puritanical streak rears it incredibly low IQ once again.
Americans don't do math, unless they can connect math to a prison term...and then the math centers of their brains light up like casinos.
Judges and prosecutors should be sent to remedial math classes before the poor are sent to debtor's prison for the 'crime' of being poor.
What a wretched country .... showering endless punishment on the poor to satisfy its sadistic streak.
Americans don't do math, unless they can connect math to a prison term...and then the math centers of their brains light up like casinos.
Judges and prosecutors should be sent to remedial math classes before the poor are sent to debtor's prison for the 'crime' of being poor.
What a wretched country .... showering endless punishment on the poor to satisfy its sadistic streak.
14
so the fact that these people are having kids and then making society pay for them just doesn't mean anything to you? Society is "sadistic' because it is forcing people to actually take responsibility for their actions? If your idea of doing business societally were to be adopted, society would cease to exist within a decade.
We have stopped seeing divorce and unwed parenthood for the social ills that they are. Two adults under one roof parenting together costs much less than trying to stretch a small income across two households.
12
In South Carolina, you still have to pay child support based upon your imputed income while you are in jail. When you get out of jail, you have no job, but you still have to pay child support.
We need to discourage feckless males and feckless females from having kids they can't look after properly. We need to make it as easy and cheap as possible for all males and females of any age to have full access to contraceptives, including the morning after pill, and to free abortions on demand.
We need to provide economic incentives not to have kids you can't afford. We need to provide incentives for couples to stay together through thick an thin.
We need to discourage feckless males and feckless females from having kids they can't look after properly. We need to make it as easy and cheap as possible for all males and females of any age to have full access to contraceptives, including the morning after pill, and to free abortions on demand.
We need to provide economic incentives not to have kids you can't afford. We need to provide incentives for couples to stay together through thick an thin.
6
Critics say, "punitive policies are trapping poor men in a cycle of debt, unemployment and imprisonment" No! What's trapping poor people, not just men, in the cycle of poverty is having children without any real consideration for the responsibility. There is a great misconception about propagating our species. When are people going to realize that children are not the solution to poverty, but are a part of the problem instead?
11
It would be far more interesting if this problem were addressed with education--if 10th graders had to sit down and calculate what the cost of child support is (according to the laws and guidelines of their own states) and how much is swallows up income to the point where it's nearly-impossible to maintain a living unless you're a solid member of the middle class ($60K and above). These economics aren't revealed to any dads until they've faced child support claims and only after some enforcement action do these dads realize how pernicious the collections process is. With foreknowledge of what can happen, my guess is that some population of fathers-to-be would probably make wiser decisions in their relationships to avoid this trap.
8
I must ask, why are people having so many children whom they can't afford to support? Safe effective birth control is widely available. Plan to bring children into the world in committed loving relationships that have a good chance of long term survival and many of these issues will go away.
14
Read some of the other comments to get a a better understanding of the situation.
That is the BIG question. Birth control is not rocket science. And it is not macho to bring children into this world when one is unable to be financially and emotionally responsible for them.
The Texas Attorney General started mandatory garnishing of wages on one of our employees. This went on until he was found not to be the father of the child through DNA testing. The mother was court ordered to repay the few thousand dollars but has not to this day some 12 years later. Women get a pass in the system. It is openly discriminatory and bias as the courts never go after women. We all know how the men end up here, but we never talk about the female problem; a lot of these women use children as a shield not to have to become productive members of our society. How do fix that problem?
That being said, almost all of my male employees are under garnishment of wages. Sad but true that they must be forced by this Attorney General collection agency, who by the way takes a percentage off the top from the child's monies, to fork over the money they owe.
The last stone to turn over here is that the employers have been turned into collection agency managers of the money for these Attorney General collection agencies by penalty of law. But they receive no such compensation "off the top." Corporate BIG money wins here as they sway State laws to their favor. I say we stop letting the Collection agencies run this and give it back to the State. At least it will be more fair to all involved.
I am pretty sure people out there don't know this by and large. What say you masses?
That being said, almost all of my male employees are under garnishment of wages. Sad but true that they must be forced by this Attorney General collection agency, who by the way takes a percentage off the top from the child's monies, to fork over the money they owe.
The last stone to turn over here is that the employers have been turned into collection agency managers of the money for these Attorney General collection agencies by penalty of law. But they receive no such compensation "off the top." Corporate BIG money wins here as they sway State laws to their favor. I say we stop letting the Collection agencies run this and give it back to the State. At least it will be more fair to all involved.
I am pretty sure people out there don't know this by and large. What say you masses?
10
I guess I want to ask about these mens' self-discipline. The fact that so many of your employees have this problem suggests to me that they only want to have sex, not personal responsibility. Once again, common sense. This country seems to want all or nothing, just so we won't actually have to figure anything out.
The only thing I've done right in my life is not having children. I think we should have modern orphanages instead of wlefare for women who have children while already on welfare. And men should pay child support if they can.
But putting men in jail who don't make enough money to keep themselves sheltered and fed makes no sense. It is only going to cost society more money, not help the children.
But putting men in jail who don't make enough money to keep themselves sheltered and fed makes no sense. It is only going to cost society more money, not help the children.
10
Being poor, having children, and then skipping out of that other parents and the childs life all require a series of very bad decision making.
9
We are a country of idiots.
An individual can not or will not pay his child support.
What do we do? Throw him in prison where can not work and definitely not pay his child support.
Smart thinking.
An individual can not or will not pay his child support.
What do we do? Throw him in prison where can not work and definitely not pay his child support.
Smart thinking.
28
I was a Loan Officer in one Top Local Mortgage Company. In 2006 used to make 450k A year as a self-employed i come. After the mortgage Metdown 2008 I was hardly making money. I explained the judge about the mortgage meltdown, Judge didn't even listen What I had to say. simply ordered $5400/m
in child- support. Thanks God I had some friends, borowed money to hire a good lawyer and brought down the child-support lowest as possible.
in child- support. Thanks God I had some friends, borowed money to hire a good lawyer and brought down the child-support lowest as possible.
6
This is no exaggeration. But, I didn't seek a support or custody order with my ex because I worried that he'd kill himself if I did. His first experience with the court system was so terrible, and his ex-wife was so vindictive, that the idea of another court order played on his mental health in such a way that I thought we'd be better off handling it on our own. He's not perfect and doesn't make a lot of money, but he's never missed a payment. For mothers who think they can find a way to keep their family out of the court system, I'd say try to find that way. The court-ordered child support system should be a last resort.
18
‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
More than 18 years ago my wife of 25 years filed for divorce and custody of our children. She also filed a compliant for a protection from abuse order claiming I had threatened her and boy friend. The charges were baseless. While forbidden from our home my wife and her friend looted our joint savings, checking and other financial accounts. Even CDs in my name only were cashed. The loss was almost $4 million. My business was closed. I lived out of my car for a few days until I found a room to rent. Then I was ordered by the Court to pay child support. I was penniless and jobless. Unable to pay I was thrown in jail for contempt of court for 10 days. Fortunately I did not lose the new job I had applied for but not yet started. Thank god for the good man and woman who helped me. I was lucky. I was educated and resourceful. It took me almost 7 years to rebuild. But I clearly remember the judge who looked scornfully down at me and derided and denigrated me. It was humiliating. And totally unnecessary. I struggled, initially earning little as more than 40% of my pay went to my ex wife and children. Some days I ate only a donut and some coffee from McDonalds. Now, many years later I read of this man's plight and I remember my own. Courts without compassion and common sense do more harm than good. The Court was there to exact revenge not provide justice.
More than 18 years ago my wife of 25 years filed for divorce and custody of our children. She also filed a compliant for a protection from abuse order claiming I had threatened her and boy friend. The charges were baseless. While forbidden from our home my wife and her friend looted our joint savings, checking and other financial accounts. Even CDs in my name only were cashed. The loss was almost $4 million. My business was closed. I lived out of my car for a few days until I found a room to rent. Then I was ordered by the Court to pay child support. I was penniless and jobless. Unable to pay I was thrown in jail for contempt of court for 10 days. Fortunately I did not lose the new job I had applied for but not yet started. Thank god for the good man and woman who helped me. I was lucky. I was educated and resourceful. It took me almost 7 years to rebuild. But I clearly remember the judge who looked scornfully down at me and derided and denigrated me. It was humiliating. And totally unnecessary. I struggled, initially earning little as more than 40% of my pay went to my ex wife and children. Some days I ate only a donut and some coffee from McDonalds. Now, many years later I read of this man's plight and I remember my own. Courts without compassion and common sense do more harm than good. The Court was there to exact revenge not provide justice.
38
Jay, sorry to hear of your situation.
It would seem that $4 million would be more than enough to pay for several children for 20 years. It seems cruel beyond belief that the Court could then order you to pay child support after the transfer of the $4 million to your ex-wife.
It would seem that $4 million would be more than enough to pay for several children for 20 years. It seems cruel beyond belief that the Court could then order you to pay child support after the transfer of the $4 million to your ex-wife.
I understand the need to have a way to enforce payment, but our legal system is too broken to figure one out that works. Where is the logic in putting a man in jail, where we know he definitely can't pay support, he'll lose his job and be unable to pay support upon release. The best part is not only is he not paying taxes while in prison, but the person who he is supposed to be supporting is now paying to support him through her tax dollars! Brilliant.
I know common sense isn't so common, but it would help if the government had some!
I know common sense isn't so common, but it would help if the government had some!
23
Common Sense 101 wouldn't go amiss at our high falutin' ivy league schools.
Child support is, of course, a most important endeavor, and deserving of enforcement. However, by jailing culprits, and making it impossible for them to earn the money to contribute, we are thwarting any hope for redemption.
8
It seems to me that one of our most important priorities should be discouraging people from having babies or encouraging them not to. This fragile earth is suffering. The cost of public entitlements, the corrections system, public housing, and so forth is dragging us down. And then it's just plain sad to see kids growing up in a vicious circle of poverty. A campaign to "get your own life straight" before getting pregnant would solve a lot of problems.
134
So would support for abortion and sex education. But there are those who believe in punishing people, especially women, for having sex outside of marriage. And these same people don't want to allow women to control their bodies. We can't have it both ways. If we are determined to keep children ignorant about sex, reproduction, and the prevention of pregnancy we have to accept the fact that there will be babies born to people without the means to raise them. If we educate children before they are in their teens, give them free access to contraception we might see fewer unwanted and unexpected children born. And, since there will always be reasons for contraception not to work and reasons women and their spouses do not want to have a child, abortion must continue to be legal.
4
Having babies is a fact of life -- even those of us who "plan" our lives have found a pregnancy a surprise. Once pregnant the choice is to have the child or not, and in increasing numbers society is finding ways to force individuals to have the child. If society want to force a pregnancy to term for any individual, then they own some (especially those that lack the education, opportunity, skills, etc. to gain reasonable employment). Oh, they can work at Walmart you say, but even there Walmart is feeding off the government teat by not paying a living wage or medical insurance. How, pray tell, are these individuals in our societies supposed to survive? Get a job that was outsourced so that the rest of us could purchase a cheaper shovel?
The costs of public entitlements, corrections, housing and so forth are the consequences of what's dragging us down, not the cause. The cause is the cruelty of many who think "getting your life straight" is as simple as making the statement. The cause is turning our backs on those in need and feel the need to punish them instead of offering a helping hand. Where is our responsibilities and compassion to our fellow citizens, especially those who we've marginalized and now are struggling just to live a life.
The costs of public entitlements, corrections, housing and so forth are the consequences of what's dragging us down, not the cause. The cause is the cruelty of many who think "getting your life straight" is as simple as making the statement. The cause is turning our backs on those in need and feel the need to punish them instead of offering a helping hand. Where is our responsibilities and compassion to our fellow citizens, especially those who we've marginalized and now are struggling just to live a life.
2
Finish school, start a job or a career, save some money, THEN consider starting a family.
Shades of Debtors' Prison!
When are we ever going to learn?
When are we ever going to learn?
10
Here's novel idea: how about telling companies that they cannot export jobs overseas, pay CEOs obscenely high salaries with perks that allow them to start up their own country while underpaying their full time workers and keeping others part time to avoid paying them decent wages. What if we also tell these same companies that there are Americans who can do the jobs they are bringing in immigrants to do and that investing in America might be good idea for them and for America?
That might not solve the whole problem but it would take care of a good deal of it. And, while we're at it why don't we start educating children about birth control, the disadvantages of having children when you cannot support them, and the importance of learning how to be in a relationship with another person before they get married or live together?
That said, there will always be accidents, unintended births, people having children that they cannot support later on because of job losses. If we are such a rich country we can step in and do something other than jailing them, suspending their driver's licenses, and fining them to death. It's inappropriate to use a law meant to penalize those hiding assets to penalize those who truly cannot pay. But we do it and, in this case, it may have led to Mr. Scott's death.
That might not solve the whole problem but it would take care of a good deal of it. And, while we're at it why don't we start educating children about birth control, the disadvantages of having children when you cannot support them, and the importance of learning how to be in a relationship with another person before they get married or live together?
That said, there will always be accidents, unintended births, people having children that they cannot support later on because of job losses. If we are such a rich country we can step in and do something other than jailing them, suspending their driver's licenses, and fining them to death. It's inappropriate to use a law meant to penalize those hiding assets to penalize those who truly cannot pay. But we do it and, in this case, it may have led to Mr. Scott's death.
7
Here's another novel idea:
Stop giving tax breaks to corps. for shipping jobs and factories overseas. The next time Sen. Stabenow sponsors a bill to repeal such breaks, maybe mostly Republican Senators will not kill it via Filibuster.
That happened in July 2012 and July 2014 but the Media are more concerned with The Kardashians "boring" stuff about Filibusters.
In 2012, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah accused the Democrats of political gamesmanship. According to The Hill prior to the vote...he called the bill, “a product of political rather than economic priorities.” It is hard to determine exactly what Exosolar Planet (51 Pegasi? Kepler 10b? ) Senator Hatch lives on. He certainly does not live on Earth.
In July 2014, "The Bring Jobs Home Act" (Bill S2569) was killed by a Filibuster by 42 Senators (41 GOP and 1 Dem). All you need are 41 Senators to sustain a Filibuster. Repeal the Filibuster.
It is difficult to follow Sen. Hatch’s reasoning here. Are the Senators who voted to kill the Bill working for America or China? It would seem the later. Perhaps they should receive their pay from Beijing in Chinese Yuan, since their “priority” seems to be encouraging jobs to go to China.
In an Op-Ed by NYT’s Joe Nocera, (“The Human Toll of Offshoring”, Sep. 2, 2014): "in the 10 years ending in 2012, this nation lost 63,300 factories and 5 million associated jobs".
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s76
http:www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
Stop giving tax breaks to corps. for shipping jobs and factories overseas. The next time Sen. Stabenow sponsors a bill to repeal such breaks, maybe mostly Republican Senators will not kill it via Filibuster.
That happened in July 2012 and July 2014 but the Media are more concerned with The Kardashians "boring" stuff about Filibusters.
In 2012, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah accused the Democrats of political gamesmanship. According to The Hill prior to the vote...he called the bill, “a product of political rather than economic priorities.” It is hard to determine exactly what Exosolar Planet (51 Pegasi? Kepler 10b? ) Senator Hatch lives on. He certainly does not live on Earth.
In July 2014, "The Bring Jobs Home Act" (Bill S2569) was killed by a Filibuster by 42 Senators (41 GOP and 1 Dem). All you need are 41 Senators to sustain a Filibuster. Repeal the Filibuster.
It is difficult to follow Sen. Hatch’s reasoning here. Are the Senators who voted to kill the Bill working for America or China? It would seem the later. Perhaps they should receive their pay from Beijing in Chinese Yuan, since their “priority” seems to be encouraging jobs to go to China.
In an Op-Ed by NYT’s Joe Nocera, (“The Human Toll of Offshoring”, Sep. 2, 2014): "in the 10 years ending in 2012, this nation lost 63,300 factories and 5 million associated jobs".
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-2013/s76
http:www.linkedin.com/in/rdelrosso2001
1
There is a considerable gap in this article, a.k.a. personal accountability for one's actions.
17
I had a friend who got himself in the cycle this article talks about. Go to jail get released behind on payments go to jail on and on.He solved his problem 6 months ago he hung himself.
9
Cry me a river. Another article by the NYT advocating that people don't have to pay their debts. People should not have to pay their child support! Don't pay your mortgage! Don't pay your traffic fines! The next article is going to be, your don't have to pay for food or utilities, or a cell phone, or any other goods you need to live. Oh wait the NYT has already written articles on why people should not have to pay for those either.
10
the article is only discussing using jail as a remedy for nonpayment, and the unintended consequences of doing so.
if you are a client of means and you don't like the child support order that the hearing officer penned and signed himself, you can have it changed removing half of the court ordered child support! This will not result in any consequences from the Allegheny County District Attorney and will not be corrected, investigated and in fact will be condoned. The hypocrisy is overwhelming for those low income payers of child support who often make minimum wage and have been given an unfair order so that judges and hearing officers can be compensated through federal bonus incentives. The Pennsylvania Child Support Enforcement Program is governed by both federal and state law. The state receives federal incentive payments based on the program's performance that is related to the collection of child support. The low income folks will be thrown in jail for contempt if they fall behind in their support payments while more influential customers at the "FAMILY COURT STORE" can buy their way out of a child support order and then have the arrears "MAGICALLY ERASED". The high income payers are worth more in straight fees to the family court. Seeing a man lose his life for running away from a police officer for fear of imprisonment over child support is even more infuriating when wealthy people are treated very differently. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/05/1334468/-Criminal-Prosecution-o...
2
What has become a painfully obvious problem to me after losing my job in a layoff, is that if you lose your job, good luck getting child support obligations reduced. All you will do is rack up legal expenses trying to do so, as unpaid alimony & support debts build up, and the Family Court will ultimately not adjust your obligations lower anyway, because of the "imputed income" philosophy (what income you theoretically could be making ... not what income you are actually making). The Family Court presumes the man is Guilty IMO.
78
It can be difficult, and judges sometimes do get on a high horse about such things. All I can suggest is keep trying and bring proof that you are out there trying for whatever work you can get and be prepared to appeal. The fact is that they are not supposed to impute income if the opportunity is not there.
This is half way between Dickens and Kafka. Has the country gone completely insane?
15
If you want to incentivize a certain behavior, pay people to do it. In essence, this had been US welfare policy since the 1960s. If you are a poor uneducated woman with few prospects for a good husband, it pays handsomely to have children out of wedlock. Welfare policy has also liberated the fathers of these children from the age-old requirement to work to provide for them. In trying to obligate men and women to take responsibility for their children, states are fighting a rearguard (and apparently losing) battle against the cultural change that, over the past two generations, has normalized out-of-wedlock childbearing, welfare dependency, and the disappearance of fathers from working-class families.
The article seeks to paint a picture of a cruel justice system that actuallly requires adults to pay for cost of raising the kids they procreate:
“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
Yet isn't that the existential problem faced by all of us -- at least the 99% of us who don't live off of inherited wealth? Don't we all need to figure out how to pay our way in life?
The article seeks to paint a picture of a cruel justice system that actuallly requires adults to pay for cost of raising the kids they procreate:
“He asked the judge, ‘How am I supposed to live?’ ” Mr. Scott said. “And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
Yet isn't that the existential problem faced by all of us -- at least the 99% of us who don't live off of inherited wealth? Don't we all need to figure out how to pay our way in life?
35
You make a lot of sense. But you also overlook a couple things. 1) the system allows only women the choice to have children and gives an incentive to earn from them. 2) enforcement actions ruin a person's ability to gain decent wage employment. After an enforcement garnishment of of 65% of a minimum wage job income, that leaves about $4,000 to live on. "How am I supposed to live?" It's a serious question. When the man's down, he gets kicked by this system.
Meanwhile South Carolina strives to make access to abortion more difficult and demeaning, evidently out of expectation that it will cause God to intervene and provide for all.
Why was a man who'd already been in jail for inability to pay child support trying to purchase a Mercedes Benz? Used or otherwise?
This is the problem with "journalism" these days—everything is written with an obvious agenda, and shockingly little skepticism.
This is the problem with "journalism" these days—everything is written with an obvious agenda, and shockingly little skepticism.
35
He was shot in the back, did you forget?
2
Even if the man was buying a car, that still gave that police officer no authority to shoot that man in the back. Of he was a murderer, would it be different?
I thought the same exact thing. He could've sold his car , paid a large sum of his support and bought a car more in his budget. Don't make children If you don't want to support them. If me and my wife ever split up , support would never be a problem. I'd give anything to my children, all 4 of them are adopted
Hmmmm let me see….ten dollars for a box of condoms or years upon years of fines, fees and jail time…I know which one I would pick. A little thought and family planning can go a long way.
53
^^ Absolutely this. I figured out how to not get someone pregnant before I hit puberty.
Yeah. There is a lot of focus on what women are incentivized to do. Maybe men should think twice about fathering kids they can't support.
When the state uses children to punish their own parents for having them, it winds up with another generation of broken people.
After reform in the police i.e. their attitude with minorities and public in general the next reform should be with the Judiciary. They also have bias against minorities take for example the quote at the end of the article.
“And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
“And the judge said something like, ‘That’s your problem. You figure it out.’ ”
1
They make white men pay the same way.
Though I agree with the assumption (putting in jail poor people for child support), the actual problem is not this article - it’s poor people having children, not able to properly support THEMSELVES, much less offspring, as well as the wholesale ‘acceptance’ by society of unwed mothers who - are either IN this financial situation BEFORE they became pregnant, and/or have MULTIPLE kids by DIFFERENT (or, the same) men - ALL of whom (LOL) can’t afford to take care of themselves, much less a kid.
They only are fathers because they’re too lazy to use protection. Same goes for the women - doesn’t discriminate who takes responsibility.
It’ IS as if society is getting dumber and dumber - where once an unwed pregnant woman (or GIRL) was - ‘hush-hushed’ to some place ‘far’ 0 an ‘unwed mother’s home,’ to now, where everyone thinks they’re so ‘with it, hip,’ whatever, when they say ‘baby’s mama,’ or baby’s daddy,’ or have ‘zero problem’ with things like 16 and Pregnant’ (if that’s the incorrect title, excuse me - I don’t watch it).
Before you think either 1) I’m ‘old,’ or 2) you imply something I did NOT say, let me tell you this; I’m in my early 30’s, and my parents taught me - when one can able to afford themselves, AND can afford to take care of ANOTHER, ONLY then (ONLY - they didn’t even say ‘married’) should you have a child.
It is NOT the government, nor society at large’s responsibility in ANY way to take care of ANYONE’S child (stupidity).
They only are fathers because they’re too lazy to use protection. Same goes for the women - doesn’t discriminate who takes responsibility.
It’ IS as if society is getting dumber and dumber - where once an unwed pregnant woman (or GIRL) was - ‘hush-hushed’ to some place ‘far’ 0 an ‘unwed mother’s home,’ to now, where everyone thinks they’re so ‘with it, hip,’ whatever, when they say ‘baby’s mama,’ or baby’s daddy,’ or have ‘zero problem’ with things like 16 and Pregnant’ (if that’s the incorrect title, excuse me - I don’t watch it).
Before you think either 1) I’m ‘old,’ or 2) you imply something I did NOT say, let me tell you this; I’m in my early 30’s, and my parents taught me - when one can able to afford themselves, AND can afford to take care of ANOTHER, ONLY then (ONLY - they didn’t even say ‘married’) should you have a child.
It is NOT the government, nor society at large’s responsibility in ANY way to take care of ANYONE’S child (stupidity).
25
These children keep our jails overflowing.
thank you NYT for taking on the Charles Dickens' role in this horrible practice. Mr. Bumble was right in "Oliver Twist" when he said, in this case, "The law is an ass!" To separate a working man from his paying job, because he owes money, which he cannot earn while he is in prison, is the height of lunacy.
13
There should be an automatic wage attachment for child support. Then all the rest would not happen.
In the 1970s there was a lot of talk in the press about the problem of a growing "permanent underclass" in the USA. Essentially folks who were always using some form of public assistance right from birth to death. A system that shoved folks into fewer and fewer meaningful societal options.
The thing is -- sadly -- it actually happened. Here it is in this article.
The thing is -- sadly -- it actually happened. Here it is in this article.
16
The child support system its abusive by the deadbeat parent and by the insensible mothers that use their child for $$$ purposes, why will a father or mom should pay based on their salary? it should be a flat rate based on kids not on wealth or salary, its ridiculous and pity.
5
Flat rate based on kids is how it's done in Scandanvia. See www.divorcecorp.com.
It's disappointing how many people here can't do math and want to chide a murdered man for having children. It's not the children that are the problem, it's the prohibitive costs of supporting two households.
How would a man who's been in and out of jail and jobless be able to afford an expensive Mercedes? Was it brand new? Was it ancient. Perhaps he got a family loan for and an old car so he could get to work. Do the math please.
It's disappointing how many people here can't do math and want to chide a murdered man for having children. It's not the children that are the problem, it's the prohibitive costs of supporting two households.
How would a man who's been in and out of jail and jobless be able to afford an expensive Mercedes? Was it brand new? Was it ancient. Perhaps he got a family loan for and an old car so he could get to work. Do the math please.
I'm sure incarceration evolved because so many deadbeat dads wouldn't pay. If you remove it as a sanction, even less will pay.
Wonder how many of these fathers who've been locked up have multiple children from multiple women?
Bottom line: Don't have children you don't plan on supporting, at all levels, for 18+ years.
Wonder how many of these fathers who've been locked up have multiple children from multiple women?
Bottom line: Don't have children you don't plan on supporting, at all levels, for 18+ years.
36
You are right on the money. We see this all the time in our county. Many parents (mostly but not all dads) are taken to jail and, lo and behold, the money required (a small fraction of the total owed) is paid before the end of the day.
Mr. Scott was a repeated offender and was supposedly about to or had just purchased a Mercedes. He lost his job because he failed to pay child support or perhaps he went to jail because he was a deadbeat dad who wanted a Mercedes instead of paying child support. Like every law that involves jail terms, they are not perfect. But a full accounting of the individuals circumstances, how they allocate their personal spending, ability to pay, ability to work and finally discretion at the judicial level is all that is necessary. On the face of it, Mr Scott is not a victim of the system.
43
I bought a Mercedes of that type and era for about $1,500. When they get that old, they are pretty cheap. It ran well with typical maintenance for about 5 years before the transmission blew up - hardly a luxury purchase for a car, even a Mercedes If he needed transportation for work, buying a car does not seem to be an abuse.
2
I believe the Mercedes driven by Mr. Scott was a 1991 model. A 20+ year old car can hardly be considered an extravagant purchase.
1
If you look at the tail lights on the "Mercedes," it was elderly, to say the least. At some point, even "luxury" European touring sedans become nearly worthless on the market.
Another terrible article that fails to discuss what's really important; that Mr. Scott and many other fathers like him, such as Mr. Holmes, are having multiple children out of marriage, but more importantly, having children that they cannot support financially. This, is the bigger issue. Not about what the court decides if the father doesn't pay. Mothers in these poor communities are seemingly encouraged to have multiple children, despite the terrible environments, to collect government assistance. At times, I get the feeling they are encouraged to do so. Still, the point is, these men need to take some responsibility and make better decisions sexually. I've made between $75k and $100k in the NYC area and refuse to have a child until my financial situation is better, if ever. Its common sense, folks.
It is profoundly selfish that Mr. Scott and people like Mr. Holmes almost feel, "entitled" to bring children in this world without means to support one. I'm not some elitist liberal either. I'm conservative and smart (in this neck of the woods we're called Republicans). Having a child is not a right. Maybe, perhaps, the New York Times would be better off writing an article about the abuse of government assistance, the mentality within the poor community because of the prospect of assistance, and how we should dial it back completely.
It is profoundly selfish that Mr. Scott and people like Mr. Holmes almost feel, "entitled" to bring children in this world without means to support one. I'm not some elitist liberal either. I'm conservative and smart (in this neck of the woods we're called Republicans). Having a child is not a right. Maybe, perhaps, the New York Times would be better off writing an article about the abuse of government assistance, the mentality within the poor community because of the prospect of assistance, and how we should dial it back completely.
46
I don't get your reply, the NYT is only reporting the story as it unfolded, the NYT is not taking a position. This is what newspapers do, they report what's going on. As an aside the Times has written about abuse of assistance programs.
Overpopulation is building up to a very violent reaction around the planet.
Excellent thesis. My modest suggestion would be to institute hormonal therapy at the onset of adolescence for all American boys and girls in order to impede reproductive ability. Applications to the government to have the therapy curtailed can be made beginning at the age of 21, subject to attaining a minimum income threshhold that would enable a prospective parent of either gender to support his or her offspring independently. Of course a separate application can be made petitioning for a different income standard if two individuals come together with the objective of reproducing, although they must agree to marry and commit to a minimum 21-year contract to cohabitate and combine financial and other resources. The government can, at any time, step in to terminate a pregnancy if it determines (pursuant to regular inspections of prospective parents' situations) that the conditions met at the time of application are no longer being met. That should take care of things, no?
Think of the jail sentences mothers without help from the fathers will face if they do not support their children, and the result is negligence, failure to thrive, starvation, death.
13
It is called get a job. As a single mom I hate the stereotypes. You can be a mom without needing assistance. It is called hard work. My taxes are going to deadbeat mothers that think that living off the system is what they are entitled to because your a single mom.
Thanks for shedding light on this important topic. For too long, child support discussions have been dominated by women and the 1980's era rhetorics of men who can pay but refuse to pay. Welfare reform of the 1990's provided generous incentives for states to levy and attempt to collect at all cost child support. The result is you end up with a court system that is unable and unwilling to consider the reasonableness of the ordered support.
Say you lost your job in the recession, most courts won't adjust the child support ordered since they use imputed income (i.e. the amount you are capable of making). Now if you don't get another job for several months ( which did happen) or if your new job pays less, you could easily end up with child support that exceeds your entire income and a court that is unwilling to bend.
If the intentions of child support is to simulate as much as possible the lifestyle the child would have if both parents lived in the same household, then why is it not automatically adjusted down if one parent loses a job.
Say you lost your job in the recession, most courts won't adjust the child support ordered since they use imputed income (i.e. the amount you are capable of making). Now if you don't get another job for several months ( which did happen) or if your new job pays less, you could easily end up with child support that exceeds your entire income and a court that is unwilling to bend.
If the intentions of child support is to simulate as much as possible the lifestyle the child would have if both parents lived in the same household, then why is it not automatically adjusted down if one parent loses a job.
14
One solution to this problem (granted, not practical in every situation) is for parents who have separated to undergo mediation, rather than an adversarial procedure. The text of the settlement agreement can include provisions for reviewing support levels, visitation, and so on, and that text usually becomes that of the divorce decree.
As with so many other societal ills, the root cause is willy-nilly production of offspring by people in unstable (if any) relationships & who can barely support themselves, let alone multiple children.
Until our mindlessly prudish culture starts providing free birth control and abortion early and often, and financially rewarding citizens who choose not to procreate, we are doomed to deal with legions more "struggling single moms" and "deadbeat dads" every year. Niggling about "the system's" minutia is just bailing Niagara Falls with a teacup. When we really need to stop the flow at the aource.
As women we are totally in control of our choice of mate. Its too bad so few women care about the fate of their offspring that they will let just about any loser sire them, repeatedly.
Until our mindlessly prudish culture starts providing free birth control and abortion early and often, and financially rewarding citizens who choose not to procreate, we are doomed to deal with legions more "struggling single moms" and "deadbeat dads" every year. Niggling about "the system's" minutia is just bailing Niagara Falls with a teacup. When we really need to stop the flow at the aource.
As women we are totally in control of our choice of mate. Its too bad so few women care about the fate of their offspring that they will let just about any loser sire them, repeatedly.
51
Don't hide the truth, which is that the average middle class child costs costs almost $300,000 to raise to high school graduation in the US. You'll need to rely on your children to support you in old age, because you won't have any retirement savings after raising them.
"As women we are totally in control"
Yet, as a man, all I see day in and day out are women who are totally out of control. Insecurity is at an all time high and within the urban and poor communities this is only exacerbated by ones materials, thus making this person an ideal mating partner and that's it. The qualifications for having a child, are shockingly low.
How many times have we bore witness to Black mothers who have 3,4,5 children who can't even remotely support themselves? You say more proactive contraception, but I say some general intelligence and education is required. While that has been tested, these people just don't listen. And the reason for that lack of reasoning with and willingness to listen is due to a government that in some ways, sponsors this behavior with government assistance.
It's a massively vicious cycle and people like Mr. Scott and Mr. Holmes are just the end game. While I don't have much sympathy for them, there needs to be a more open discussion about the women these men are mating with. This is the result of what happens all the way down the production line. It's rather ironic actually, that you state women are totally in control of their choice of mate, yet so many make this decision poorly.
Yet, as a man, all I see day in and day out are women who are totally out of control. Insecurity is at an all time high and within the urban and poor communities this is only exacerbated by ones materials, thus making this person an ideal mating partner and that's it. The qualifications for having a child, are shockingly low.
How many times have we bore witness to Black mothers who have 3,4,5 children who can't even remotely support themselves? You say more proactive contraception, but I say some general intelligence and education is required. While that has been tested, these people just don't listen. And the reason for that lack of reasoning with and willingness to listen is due to a government that in some ways, sponsors this behavior with government assistance.
It's a massively vicious cycle and people like Mr. Scott and Mr. Holmes are just the end game. While I don't have much sympathy for them, there needs to be a more open discussion about the women these men are mating with. This is the result of what happens all the way down the production line. It's rather ironic actually, that you state women are totally in control of their choice of mate, yet so many make this decision poorly.
Bohemienne: I agree with almost everything you say, here and in other posts; but it is also true that many women do not discover the true character of their mates--even the educated, gainfully employed ones--until they have had a child with that person. I have seen too often how as soon as the man wants out of the marriage, he wants out of fatherhood too--at least in the context of that particular family.
No one is prepared for that. The good, stable family man becomes the betrayer you did not know.
No one is prepared for that. The good, stable family man becomes the betrayer you did not know.
The current laws are a strict backlash from the years when men could easily walk away from multiple kids without consequence. Women and children suffered and state's struggled badly and ineffectively to pick up the cost. The pendulum swung has too far and laws need to be amended to be more sensible and more equal to fathers. Jailing them; taking away their ability to earn a living is not doing their children any good.
4
I feel for Walter Scott's four children. None of whom he stuck around to raise and none of whom he could apparently afford to support.
97
Actually, somewhere in the article, one of his daughters from his first relationship said that her mother never had bad things to say about him and whenever they needed money, he brought it. And he had reconciled with his wife and younger 2 kids. The article doesn't say anything about him not staying around to raise them.
Just another instance of government using the legal system to enforce morality. Fathers either want to support their children, regardless of whether they have the funds, or they don't. No law can make a man want to support a child. However, in rehabbing houses, I have noticed a large number of my laborers were without driver's licenses or were spending time in jail over back support. One was an electrician on crutches; he had to rely on other workers to drive him 40 miles to the job site. One weekend, he was picked up and jailed. He had to mop floors at the jail, slipped, was hospitalized and when he got out, his wife and kids were living in a hot trailer in July with the power turned off. That is a pretty typical story.
3
High schools should be teaching this.
The costs involved with having children, the consequences of being poor and liable to jail for non support.
One child costs $240K.
Half of marriages will end in divorce.
The costs involved with having children, the consequences of being poor and liable to jail for non support.
One child costs $240K.
Half of marriages will end in divorce.
10
"Unpaid child support became a big concern in the 1980s and ’90s as public hostility grew toward the archetypal “deadbeat dad” who lived comfortably while his children suffered. "
The timing of this hostility coincides with the rise of feminism. Women have more power in society than they did before. Unfortunately passing laws or issuing judicial rulings won't create Mr. Rights any more than it will stop the tide from flowing.
Perhaps legalizing prostitution would reduce the problem.
The timing of this hostility coincides with the rise of feminism. Women have more power in society than they did before. Unfortunately passing laws or issuing judicial rulings won't create Mr. Rights any more than it will stop the tide from flowing.
Perhaps legalizing prostitution would reduce the problem.
1
Do you think that prostitutes don't have children?
Oh, so we should forgive debt and work with father's on making certain they aren't penalized, so they can have a girlfriend while skipping child support payments, and any accrued debt added should be forgiven so they don't lose their license so they can continue to have kids who when the relationship breaks up, so do they from the kid. Sounds like an awesome plan. I just hope it happens in a state far from the Northeast. I also suppose this plan applies to minority men only. Maybe white men should be forced to pay for their debts while we are at it. We could take away their metro cards and mercedes alike if the fail to pay. White guys, the hated underdog. Special rules for certain people who do the wrong thing.
3
Here's a novel thought - don't have children if you can't afford them. Give all people greater access to birth control & abortion. Especially in the South the religious community encourages human reproduction despite the fact that we have far too many humans on earth. In SC, if you engage in sexual activity in the state you have the possibility of producing a child which you, as parent must support. Neither the child nor the tax payers should have to pay for your irresponsible reproduction. The family court system often sees people with multiple children whom they either don't or cannot afford to support. This is not rocket science.
9
The debt gets so big because they are paying NOTHING, not even an attempt to help financially. Unemployment is 5.5%. There are jobs. I work in a jail and see these people all the time. They often state they are willfully disrespecting the other parent and disregard the effect on the child(ren). They feel child support is completely unfair and often owe several different mothers. This occurs across races. The debtors usually believe they should not have to help support their children.
9
My ex was ordered to pay child support. I never received a penny. He never went to jail. He moved out of state. Even though he was tracked down and the state he was living in ordered him to pay, he didn't. Oh and he didn't lose his job either and neither were his wages garnished. And he wasn't even available as a father figure. He was white.
Well, now Scott will never have to worry about child support nor will his children receive child support or their father's love. So I guess the state's policy did not work very well.
Well, now Scott will never have to worry about child support nor will his children receive child support or their father's love. So I guess the state's policy did not work very well.
6
Contrary to the assertion in the article, these individuals do not go to jail because they are poor. They go to jail because they choose to have children they cannot support. While I have no sympathy for those who can pay and choose not to do so, and I have some for those who cannot pay because they are themselves destitute, it's not a lot more.
9
I get it - debtors' prison -- not a good idea and not fair. But I'll tell you what lots of people are thinking: why does some guy who has such poor prospects father 4 children? Isn't that just a touch irresponsible? I don't want to see him go to prison - that simply makes it less likely that he can do what he has to do to support his offspring. But maybe we could institute a public health education campaign about making responsible choices in reproduction when we change the laws to eliminate debtors' prison for failure to pay child support.
11
Why are these men fathering children they cannot help support?
23
Because they can. There is no social reprobation for having 4 kids or 10 kids, or for not working, or for raising kids on welfare. There is certainly "no judgement" if you don't marry or have children before you marry. There is no shame anymore to living on welfare, or having MORE children WHILE on welfare.
I suggest mandatory reading for anyone posting here be last year's wonderful series on "Dasani: The Invisible Child" -- a family with TEN children, and living in one filthy room in a homeless shelter, while the father buys himself gold teeth and uses the welfare money to get himself drugs.
I suggest mandatory reading for anyone posting here be last year's wonderful series on "Dasani: The Invisible Child" -- a family with TEN children, and living in one filthy room in a homeless shelter, while the father buys himself gold teeth and uses the welfare money to get himself drugs.
Good question. But surely the other question is: why are these women having babies they cannot afford to raise?
This story is more about the for profit prison system than not paying child support. Not everything needs to be a money machine for the greed junkies.
9
Single mothers break their backs 24/7/365 to raise these kids, they have no time off. This guy is $8,000 behind on a $125 aweek payment, thats 64 weeks. He wasn't even trying.
23
There are three parties involved here: males, females, and the state . A former President of the United States put his thumb on the cultural balance many years ago when he decided to refer to women who had children outside of marriage as "single mothers", and the males who fathered those children as "deadbeat dads". With the growing joblessness and the economic impoverishment of the lower classes over several decades, the system has evolved into one of whipping dead horses and extracting blood from turnips - - within the male component.
8
"Skip child support/Go to Jail/Lose job/Repeat", seems counter-productive.
It runs counter to "evidence based" behavioral change methodology.
Or, do we want to perpetuate the debtor's prison & Jim Crow philosophy which didn't work ?
Do we want to be punitive or rehabilitative ?
It runs counter to "evidence based" behavioral change methodology.
Or, do we want to perpetuate the debtor's prison & Jim Crow philosophy which didn't work ?
Do we want to be punitive or rehabilitative ?
5
"walter scott had 4 children 2 out of wedlock" OK locking him up may seem excessive but the crime of fathering multiple children you then refuse to bear responsibility for (truly emotuionally ,setting a life example, as well as financially) must be punished truly if you truly do not have the money:public service. maybe going without a wide screen TV newest smart phone and high end car unless you pay some proportion what is owed?
16
This is simply absurd and incomprehensible to any European. I didn't know that debtor's prison already exists on such a large scale in the US. How can any sane person make laws that throw people in jail for not paying when they just don't earn enough to pay, and with the full knowledge that throwing people in jail will definitely not make them earn more after they get out. The obvious stupidity is mind-boggling.
71
& in addition there is the waste of Government resources. As we all know the cost of incarceration far exceeds the unpaid support. On top of that there is the cost of police enforcement followed by the cost of court resources. A cost analyses would demonstrate an extraordinary waste of resources for minimal results. Clearly there has to more intelligent methods of enforcement such as mandatory community service as suggested by another commentator.
People like Walter Scott should given daytime-release sentences that permit them to hold jobs during the day while spending their nights in jail until they catch up on their child support.
18
I actually know several guys (all of whom are white) who are in this catch-22 of child support-jai-no driver's license-lost job. They are all working. Some work "under the table" and some not. Suspending someone's license for non-payment of child support is stupid and counter-productive. Jail COULD be used as an incentive to pay up, but on a sensible basis. Delinquent dads could spend the weekend in jail performing work for the county, attending AA and NA meetings, parenting classes, etc. They could be excused from weekend jail if they brought evidence from their employer (and later, the earnings) that they had to work that weekend.
7
This problem is much bigger than just child support. It is an Old Testament, punish the "wicked", mentality which is very widespread in America. By "the wicked", I mean the poor. I see it with low wage workers all the time. I process garnishments for my employees regularly. The brain-injured Iraqi vet who can't get his drivers license back, so he has real difficulty finding work in our rural area, all due to fines piled in fines for "public drunkenness", when he was walking home at 2 am. The guy who lost his car in a divorce many years ago, with $6K unpaid. 20 years later, he just got hit with a garnishment order for over $40,000. An employee just beat a state cop's ticket in court, when he showed a judge a photo on his cell phone of the working tail light that the ticket was for, date and time stamped to match the ticket. Fortunately someone powerful intervened at the time of the ticket, or who knows what the cop would have done to get that phone away, at 4 am alone on a rural road. I have employees who work so hard, and they pay and pay and pay, but never catch up. The gentleman I referred to above with the $40,000 judgement? He had just finished off paying back child support after 6 years at 25% of his wages. A very reliable employee, and a vet. I don't know how he keeps going.
23
Tragic story, which shouldn't have taken place at all. This is a vicious circle. A person who isn't capable enough to take care of his wife to start with and then the child or children has no business to marry in the first place. It's always better to suffer single and die single rather than make others suffer lifelong.
Marriage simply doesn't mean sex, enjoyment and procreation. It literally means sharing the family affection, bonding and responsibility by all means that includes taking care of the children for making better future for them, it's as simple as that.
Yes, married people have no business to dump the children and make them run helter skelter as if they are irrelevant and non existent.
Marriage simply doesn't mean sex, enjoyment and procreation. It literally means sharing the family affection, bonding and responsibility by all means that includes taking care of the children for making better future for them, it's as simple as that.
Yes, married people have no business to dump the children and make them run helter skelter as if they are irrelevant and non existent.
6
Our legal system is designed to punish, not correct the behavior we wish to change. It makes no sense, and helps no child or family live a better life. There is no justice for the poor in our justice system.
12
I work with the women on the other side of this story. Believe me, these guys are not the victims you all think they are after reading it. Some of these women have never been paid any child support by the child's father unless forced by the court. Most of them work minimum wage jobs and take the hours that will allow them to provide the childcare their children need or rely on family members to watch the kids so they don't lose even this minimal source of income. There is no affordable daycare available in many communities and the subsidized ones have lots of requirements and long waiting lists. Yes, the moms are on food stamps and Medicaid because they live at the poverty level. Would you rather have these children starve because their fathers haven't provided any resources to help their mothers put food on the table? Most of these women never even bother to try to collect on the money owed because they know that the deadbeat dad can pay a minimal amount and get released after being arrested and the cycle will simply repeat. I agree that the system needs to be reformed, but don't be blaming the mothers for this problem. They're the ones who for the most part have taken their responsibility as parents seriously and are trying to raise their kids with very little assistance.
62
I am glad the women are taking their responsibility seriously, because they are the ones who decided to have the kids. Last I checked, men can't give birth to kids.
I don't see why men should pay for the decisions of women, especially when those women sometimes don't contribute equally financially to the child's upbringing, or they get re-married but the man is forced to continue paying child support.
I don't see why men should pay for the decisions of women, especially when those women sometimes don't contribute equally financially to the child's upbringing, or they get re-married but the man is forced to continue paying child support.
They "take their responsibility as parents seriously and are trying to raise their kids with very little assistance"? Wendy, when someone gets pregnant (often as a teenager), by a guy whose employment/income prospects are as precarious as her own, she is most definitely NOT taking parenthood seriously. Us idiots who pay taxes get stuck with the bill for her kids' daycare -- as well as our own. I'm a lifelong Democrat and even **I** am offended by your knee-jerk defense of these irresponsible woman-children.
Yes, but they are also the ones who chose to have a child (or children) with a man (or men) whom they know very well cannot or will not support them. I'm a family law attorney and have been for over 10 years and I've abuses on all sides of this equation; the mothers, the fathers and the government. But women have the ultimate control over their bodies. It's their decision whether to have a child or not. And I say it's irresponsible, selfish and just plain dumb to have a child that you cannot afford to take care of yourself.
2
As someone who survived the child support system back in the 1970's starting with a vindictive judge who demanded 60% of my min wage job that was paying for my education, the deck is clearly stacked against the individual charged with paying the support. Luckily, that judge was fired from the bench for malfeasance and bribery and the next judge reviewed over 100 cases and reset child support to a sliding scale based on ability to pay. Add to that, my exwife remarried after the divorce was finalized to the person who was the reason of my filing for divorce and lived an upper class lifestyle where my child support payments made no difference. Regardless of the amount, I never missed a payment. But the final indignity was the child support system itself. My wife filed annually that I had not paid support and we went through the same process every year of supplying copies of the checks, the attorney fees, etc. to prove I had paid. Even the state got tired of it after 6 years and filed an injunction against my ex wife. Visitation was another different nightmare. It was also revealed in court that my ex wife had never let any communication to my children get to them for over a decade when I had moved out of state. When they did turn 18, they searched and found me and ever since, have had minimal communication with their mother and they now turn to me for much of their advice. To this day, the courts are a failure to the children and non custodial parent.
219
Wow, you married a real winner! I hope you did not suffer long.
I am glad to hear that you have managed to re-establish contact with your children after that nightmare anyway.
1
I am a product of a deadbeat dad who lived really well while his children suffered. This too was in the 70's in NYC when you could get away with it and boy, did he. I feel no sympathy for Fathers who do this and then cry poverty. Your kid, you need to take care of him/her no ifs ands or buts. That being said, allowances should be made for extenuating circumstances, he can't pay if he is in jail.
39
The enforcement system for child support may be broken, but there still needs to be an incentive for poor fathers to work to support their children. I have firsthand experience with homeless mothers trying to raise children without the father's support. Many of these fathers have multiple children by multiple women and make no attempt to be involved in any way in the children's lives.
Multigenerational poverty has many causes, but a big one is the lesson learned in childhood: mothers go on welfare to support their children, fathers just go. While I agree that prison is not the answer, neither is pity for a man who fathers children with no ability or intent to support them.
Multigenerational poverty has many causes, but a big one is the lesson learned in childhood: mothers go on welfare to support their children, fathers just go. While I agree that prison is not the answer, neither is pity for a man who fathers children with no ability or intent to support them.
57
I thought it took two people to have a baby. ML, you make one gender out to be angels and the other the devil. This is a complete distortion.
Neither is pity for a woman who has children (sometimes multiple children) with men who are not a spouse. Oh, I forgot, marriage is just a public declaration of a sexual relationship now. Well, this is what happens when civil law ignores the laws of nature.
But we do pity women who have children with no means to support them? Nice equality there...
Child support is critical to meeting the financial needs of caring for children, but what is more important is a positive relationship between these men and their children. If their earning capacity is low or they are unemployed as are many people, the threat of jail, loss of licenses to work, etc. is a risk for someone with little or no income i.e., they can't pay. Even when jailed, the arrears continue to increase. Jailing men in these circumstances costs their children and society more than it benefits anyone! It would be better to create and fund programs that ensure than men with children have skills and work than to support a prison industry with public funds that provides no return. I've lived this. I would not continue to go to court to insist that my children's father who had many problems and could not work was not jailed after it happened the first time. I worked with him to make sure he spent time with his children even when it cost me money. So I got zero child support he couldn't pay anyway; I didn't say a negative thing about it to his children-- he couldn't work; he didn't go to jail. My children built relationships with their Dad that otherwise might have not been possible. I decided early on that the emotional well-being of us all was more important. Create work for these fathers and stop jailing them please! If they are working, yet have low incomes, create sliding scales based upon income. If they have the ability to pay, but won't, garnish their wages.
177
I'm sorry but your approach will never work. It just makes too much sense.
Create or fund programs? NO! This is the problem to begin with. Get Government OUT of family lives. BOTH parents should pay for kid. Not just 1. Dad should pay for the kid when with him, mom pays when with her. Get the middle man out.
Its difficult to read an article like this and not feel sympathy for the father in these difficult circumstances, but any correction of the problem is, like the problem itself, only a band-aid solution to a far bigger issue. The breakdown of the family unit in impoverished blacks is in the end, the cause of the problem. Without the guidance of a father in the home, young black men far too often grow up without learning about the responsibility inherent in having a child. When that responsibility is imposed on them by the courts, it is too late and so they begin the cycle described. There is no good and just solution that can accommodate the needs of the father, mother and children in such circumstances. The answer lies in the long and difficult road to re-establishing the family unit.
18
More than half of all white babies are born to single moms -- the "breakdown of the family" is not an exclusively black issue.
I defend child support cases in five rural counties in virginia. I agree the process needs reforming, but there is more to the story than you are telling. Something like 80% to 90% of those sent to jail for child support urge out within three days. These are civil comptempt of court charges, so the defendants are given an opinion to go to jail or pay a percentage of the support owed to avoid jail. This percentage is called a purge amount. Most are able to pay the purge. In addition, I have been In court with people sentenced to days or months in court, they make a phone call and even after testifying to not working for years and having no money are able to make the purge. I once had a guy owing over 10,000 in support and his obligation was on,y $65 per month. The judge set a purge at $1800 or six months in jail. He was placed in a holding cell for two hours, his new wife came to court and threw the $1800 on a table to me and the support enforcement official to get him out of jail. There was $1000 in hundreds, $500 in fifties and $300 in twenties. I left court after him, because I was still defending cases, and that $1800 represented 28 months of payments.
26
Most of the time that "magic money" that appears right before jail is imposed or it's actually imposed is coming from friends and relatives being shaken down--it's not coming from the debtor's actual income and often it's not his assets. If the deadbeat has moved in with a girlfriend into her house that's in her name, that house and her cash is hers, not his. So really you're just capitalizing on the new person he's made a relationship with and extracting money out of her, and his/hers friends and family. For criminal cases no sentence can impose "corruption of blood", where fines and prison penalties stretch into the family of the accused. But for some reason when it comes to child support, virtual corruption of blood is A-OK. If the deadbeat father is hiding assets, then the burden should be on YOU to prove to the family court judge that he's hiding assets that are his and can be liquidated to service the debt.
Why bother us with facts? They interfere with the narrative. So irritating!
We need to mature in our outlook of life. Incarcerating people is not a solution to helping a child. Remember, child support is about a child. We are a superpower, we need to study Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and learn from them how to deal with child support.
Surely we have enough educated government officials that can look into each case and provide better solutions to these broken families?
Our roots were wrongly planted, our founding fathers were not your average American, hence the roots of our laws are harsh, we need to be more magnanimous, have better education, better overall services to those with less opportunities. Why is it that with the right legal team a person can stay out of prison? That is not a sign of a healthy society.
Please, don't jump on me, yes, a real man accepts his responsibilities and must do what is right for his child, but blindly putting those less educated, less fortunate in jail is not the solution; there must be uniform laws and services available for those genuinely struggling to make ends meet. Incarceration must be an absolute last method of action.
Surely we have enough educated government officials that can look into each case and provide better solutions to these broken families?
Our roots were wrongly planted, our founding fathers were not your average American, hence the roots of our laws are harsh, we need to be more magnanimous, have better education, better overall services to those with less opportunities. Why is it that with the right legal team a person can stay out of prison? That is not a sign of a healthy society.
Please, don't jump on me, yes, a real man accepts his responsibilities and must do what is right for his child, but blindly putting those less educated, less fortunate in jail is not the solution; there must be uniform laws and services available for those genuinely struggling to make ends meet. Incarceration must be an absolute last method of action.
16
When my husband and I divorced in the late 80's, we chose to work out a child support agreement that was reasonable for him so that I could continue to work, and he would not be left penniless as he built a new life for himself. After all, I was left with the house (and the mortgage payments) and had full custody of our sons. More important to me was that he spent quality time with his children and was accessible to them as needed. It's now been some 30 years. He remarried, had other children, I've moved on to other relationships, and our lives have interwoven such that we can spend holidays and family time together.
However, while we were able to come to an amicable arrangement on child support (with the help of the attorneys who handled our divorce), there is a need a for government or some agency outside the family structure to help those couples that are unable to reach such an agreement based on actual income because of the acrimony that cam usually clouds these situations. I support a more rational system that holds both parents accountable and responsible for supporting their children, and prevents either parent from being harshly punished for failing to make financial payments.
However, while we were able to come to an amicable arrangement on child support (with the help of the attorneys who handled our divorce), there is a need a for government or some agency outside the family structure to help those couples that are unable to reach such an agreement based on actual income because of the acrimony that cam usually clouds these situations. I support a more rational system that holds both parents accountable and responsible for supporting their children, and prevents either parent from being harshly punished for failing to make financial payments.
113
The personal stories in some of the comments prove the fact that a crucial element in a successful divorce is maturity on the side of the couple. This is not something that the courts can mandate - not before they can demand that only emotionally mature people can have children.
And I believe the late Mr. Scott had a right to be resentful of the fact that he was the only parent required to hold a job. In most married families both parents work.
And I believe the late Mr. Scott had a right to be resentful of the fact that he was the only parent required to hold a job. In most married families both parents work.
The jailing of men for lack of child support is the outcome of inadequate access to childcare. We live in an economy that expects and requires two incomes to support a family. The key statement in the article is from the director of the Federal child support office that “the system should be based on the expectation that both parents would contribute toward their children’s needs.” ““It’s nuts...She gets the assistance; he gets charged with the bill.”
There remains a not-so-subtle insinuation that poor mothers (often of color) are lazy and should be not only taking care of the kids and the home, but providing income. Headstart passed 50 years ago, has proven inadequate. In 1971 Nixon vetoed an attempt to provide universal childcare because he felt it smacked of communism. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/collins-the-state-of-the-4-yea...
An article in the NY Times on 4/1/15 describes a PhD child care expert who is unable to find childcare; how can we expect impoverished parents to meet the demand to contribute without access to affordable, adequate child care.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/if-an-expert-in-preschool-...
Those that support “Family Values” should see the problem with imprisoning fathers this as a prime area for comprehensive support legislation - rather than an issue through which to castigate either parent stuck with few or no options to do the right thing for his or her children.
There remains a not-so-subtle insinuation that poor mothers (often of color) are lazy and should be not only taking care of the kids and the home, but providing income. Headstart passed 50 years ago, has proven inadequate. In 1971 Nixon vetoed an attempt to provide universal childcare because he felt it smacked of communism. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/opinion/collins-the-state-of-the-4-yea...
An article in the NY Times on 4/1/15 describes a PhD child care expert who is unable to find childcare; how can we expect impoverished parents to meet the demand to contribute without access to affordable, adequate child care.
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/if-an-expert-in-preschool-...
Those that support “Family Values” should see the problem with imprisoning fathers this as a prime area for comprehensive support legislation - rather than an issue through which to castigate either parent stuck with few or no options to do the right thing for his or her children.
25
TV shows like Maury Povich have significantly demonized both men and women, particularly PoC, as the unexpected child is far less important than the cash. Educating fathers-to-be on what the current legal framework is and how much greater the costs are to fathers than are to mothers of unexpected children would hopefully reduce the amount of these cases among the poor. Mothers don't face debtors prisons if they fail to financially support their kids and find a way through a job market that's predisposed to discriminate against people who have faced legally-imposed costs. Men face this every day. Until family courts are limited from imposing jail only a burden of proof is established and met that a deadbeat father has willfully hidden significant assets to satisfy the debt, this situation will not get better.
I am one of the men represented in this story from Bergen County N.J. having been constantly arrested over the past 7 years for being BEHIND on child support although PAYING every month.
This past February, 3 plain clothes police with the Bergen County Sheriff's department (fugative unit) unlawfully came into the private home I reside in without a warrent and searched the house for me!
I was eventually release the next day after being shakled to other men in an orange jumpsuit, paraded through the corridors of the courthouse and gawked at as if I was a murderer. Other times, the county has suspended my driver's license, unbeknownst to me, with a corresponding bench warrent. This is so when you drive, a scanner by any officer cruiser can detect an arrest warrent. They then pull you over for "driving with a suspended license" (although you never knew it was) and issued a corresponding ticket, your car gets towed, you have to go to traffic court for the ticket, pay a New Jersey surcharge fee of $300 dollars for 3 years for driving suspended, pay a storage fee after you get out of jail to get your car back, and explain to work while you disappeared until a judge can hear your case while losing all credibility at work. May I add that the phone system is rigged too in jail so you can't call anybody unless they have an account w a particular communication company (kickback) that allows them to recieve over inflated priced collect calls. A disgraceful system that does more damage.
This past February, 3 plain clothes police with the Bergen County Sheriff's department (fugative unit) unlawfully came into the private home I reside in without a warrent and searched the house for me!
I was eventually release the next day after being shakled to other men in an orange jumpsuit, paraded through the corridors of the courthouse and gawked at as if I was a murderer. Other times, the county has suspended my driver's license, unbeknownst to me, with a corresponding bench warrent. This is so when you drive, a scanner by any officer cruiser can detect an arrest warrent. They then pull you over for "driving with a suspended license" (although you never knew it was) and issued a corresponding ticket, your car gets towed, you have to go to traffic court for the ticket, pay a New Jersey surcharge fee of $300 dollars for 3 years for driving suspended, pay a storage fee after you get out of jail to get your car back, and explain to work while you disappeared until a judge can hear your case while losing all credibility at work. May I add that the phone system is rigged too in jail so you can't call anybody unless they have an account w a particular communication company (kickback) that allows them to recieve over inflated priced collect calls. A disgraceful system that does more damage.
376
That is tremendously unfair. Treating people like cash cows.
Ridgewood Dad,
My experience is similar to yours only in the Monmouth County Vicinage. If you turn yourself in to purge a warrant, you are placed in a holding cell and then shackled and paraded through the courthouse. Most of the guys who turn themselves in ONLY crime is they are divorced and because of a job loss or underemployment cannot make their full alimony and child support payment. The original intent of the drivers license suspensions and warrants was only for the most egregious cases of non payment. Through the years, DL suspensions and warrants became the first line enforcement action against those who fall behind....even if they are paying something! The system needs to be changed back to the original intent which the state has to Prove you are purposely shirking your responsibilities.
My experience is similar to yours only in the Monmouth County Vicinage. If you turn yourself in to purge a warrant, you are placed in a holding cell and then shackled and paraded through the courthouse. Most of the guys who turn themselves in ONLY crime is they are divorced and because of a job loss or underemployment cannot make their full alimony and child support payment. The original intent of the drivers license suspensions and warrants was only for the most egregious cases of non payment. Through the years, DL suspensions and warrants became the first line enforcement action against those who fall behind....even if they are paying something! The system needs to be changed back to the original intent which the state has to Prove you are purposely shirking your responsibilities.
Where is the report on the man's children? How were they impacted? The poverty rate on our nation's children has skyrocketed, & that's largely because MEN won't step up to the plate & support their own children. Women stay to raise their children--& are vilified for being loose, irresponsible, etc.Men, meanwhile, just walk away.
You write here that a huge majority of a man's $10,000 salary goes to child support? Well, what about the woman's $10,000 salary? You think it goes to nail filing?
What is the Times' solution here? I agree that debtors prison is often wrong. But what is the solution in this case? The CHILDREN are the ones who should be the focus, not the dads who won't pay child support. There are zillions of opportunities to pay before you are hauled to jail. You write this man 'did not realize' that if he fell behind on payments he would face jail. Do you know how many notices you get from the court? How many times they try to collect before they put you in jail?
When men don't pay child support, even poor men, the children are left not only without a father in their lives, but often destitute, while mom scrambles to feed them. Last I checked,the responsibility for being a father doesn't stop when you are poor. It doesn't stop when you're a mother--I've never heard of anyone excusing a woman from raising her children because she's poor.
If you do an article on these men, you need to simultaneously show how their children live & how the mother is managing.
You write here that a huge majority of a man's $10,000 salary goes to child support? Well, what about the woman's $10,000 salary? You think it goes to nail filing?
What is the Times' solution here? I agree that debtors prison is often wrong. But what is the solution in this case? The CHILDREN are the ones who should be the focus, not the dads who won't pay child support. There are zillions of opportunities to pay before you are hauled to jail. You write this man 'did not realize' that if he fell behind on payments he would face jail. Do you know how many notices you get from the court? How many times they try to collect before they put you in jail?
When men don't pay child support, even poor men, the children are left not only without a father in their lives, but often destitute, while mom scrambles to feed them. Last I checked,the responsibility for being a father doesn't stop when you are poor. It doesn't stop when you're a mother--I've never heard of anyone excusing a woman from raising her children because she's poor.
If you do an article on these men, you need to simultaneously show how their children live & how the mother is managing.
42
"But what is the solution in this case?" The solution is the state steps in to provide assistance for the children, and then tries to collect in a humane fashion from the father. This will cost the American taxpayer money. The American taxpayer will resist. Nothing will be done. But that is the solution.
5
You do not understand that everyone is paying. County attorneys are collecting hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the Social Security pool.(act iv). They are getting paid a second time,for a job they are already paid to do. You surely did'nt think they do it to help children. This is one of the reasons SSI is going broke. Justice is big business. You might also would like to know,that some of the money (your SSI) goes into the judge's retirement fund.
In many states, the woman is eligible for many assistance that poor families get including subsidized rents, medicaid for healthcare, foodstamp for food. A man earning $10,000 might be easily be ordered to be pay as much as $6000 to $7000 and is probbly eligible for at best food stamp. How is he supposed to live on the $2000 to $3000.
Sometimes, we just have to accept, we can't squeeze blood out of a stone. Child support, like a lot of local municipal fees and fines is often just a considereable burden for the middle class and rich. For they poor, they often are an impossible burden.
Sometimes, we just have to accept, we can't squeeze blood out of a stone. Child support, like a lot of local municipal fees and fines is often just a considereable burden for the middle class and rich. For they poor, they often are an impossible burden.
Another reason to make birth control readily available and affordable......
135
Sorry, rose, it's not enough to make birth control readily available. It has to also be used. Responsibility is a very difficult to exercise. Unfortunately, as evidenced here, it cannot be imposed. Those who have the greatest difficulties with it tend to have the greatest difficulties with their lives overall.
10
Uh Rose, most everyone can get birth control for free. Agreed with AACNY that actually taking it and being responsible is probably the bigger issue.
1
another reason to make birth control mandatory and enforced when society pays for the child-bearing.
"...the vast majority of unpaid child support is owed by the very poor..." this is now true because the tools developed in the 90s make it easier to obtain payments from deadbeat dads who could pay but would not do so. Those tools, like traffic tickets, were not supposed to be used against the porrest members of society. It's the enforcement that is at issue. It is also important to note that the underlying point should be that these men should only have those children they can support. Men can and should take charge of birth control.
17
Ms Turetsky misses the point of recovering cash assistance (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) from the noncustodial parent, who is typically the father. Yes, the mother gets the assistance, and the father, if he is able, must repay it up to the extent of his obligation for past support. But the assistance is paid to the mother for the children. If the father were financially supporting the family, the amount of cash assistance would be much less, often zero.
I'm not sure what the Obama administration is thinking in limiting the calculation of child support obligations to the actual income of the father. If the court can't impute income, the father could choose not to work or work off the books and never owe any child support. The law typically requires a finding that the father is voluntarily unemployed; when he is, courts should be able to impute minimum wage for a fulltime job, especially in the present, improving job market.
Mr. Scott's situation seems to raise issues of enforcement, not establishment, of child support obligations. But, for both, child support may never exceed what the father is able to pay. And the amount that may be garnished from his wages is also limited by the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Mr. Scott's child support experiences do not warrant reform of the child support laws, but they do reinforce the importance of ensuring that courts are applying these laws fairly and on an informed basis.
I'm not sure what the Obama administration is thinking in limiting the calculation of child support obligations to the actual income of the father. If the court can't impute income, the father could choose not to work or work off the books and never owe any child support. The law typically requires a finding that the father is voluntarily unemployed; when he is, courts should be able to impute minimum wage for a fulltime job, especially in the present, improving job market.
Mr. Scott's situation seems to raise issues of enforcement, not establishment, of child support obligations. But, for both, child support may never exceed what the father is able to pay. And the amount that may be garnished from his wages is also limited by the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Mr. Scott's child support experiences do not warrant reform of the child support laws, but they do reinforce the importance of ensuring that courts are applying these laws fairly and on an informed basis.
8
Here in Massachusetts, the payor spouse can look forward to living on a little less than half his or her gross income after support is calculated. Here, you pay support based on gross income; your personal expenses don't matter. Then you get to pay taxes. Voila, you're now poor. And likely not to pay.
20
please ladies!!, If we had a system that was taking women to jail and leaving them there for 4 or 5 months because they did not pay something or have enough money, our country would be over run by women's groups and activists demanding change. If this happens to men it is just fine. both partners are equally responsible for creating the children, and should split the bill 50/50. if she is unable to pay her 50 percent, she should be going to jail as well.
49
You don't know what you're talking about here. The mothers are on the hook for almost 100% of what it takes to raise a child when the father contributes nothing. This story is very one-sided.
9
Many mothers ‘choose ‘ to be ‘on the hook.’ It’s about complete control of the kids, and many mothers want that, even if it costs them, and their children, financially.
2
And then who will care for the children if you put the custodial parent in jail?
This article should be filed in the rather thick binder called "the law of unintended consequences." Non-custodial parents absolutely should pay towards their child's upkeep and support, and if they don't the custodial parent should be able to sue them. But sending someone to jail because they can't pay - not because they refuse to pay - is on its face counterproductive. How can someone pay when they have no driver's license, or law license, or (even worse) have the stigma of having served jail time? I completely sympathize with a custodial parent who is struggling to raise children (usually divorce drives the standard of living for both parents down), but that doesn't justify runing someone's life. Not to mention that debtor's prisons went out of style 100 years ago.
And as many people point out, this is another example of criminalizing something that is really a civil matter. As one person said, "I can't afford to be poor."
And as many people point out, this is another example of criminalizing something that is really a civil matter. As one person said, "I can't afford to be poor."
292
OK all fair points but what happens when the working father doesnt pay or doesnt pay enough over time? What if the father is just on public assistance and not in a FT job? You are creating a simple black and white scenario but real life isnt like that.
1
Sue them? Are you kidding? Do you think that has never been tried?
The whole "schtick" of refusing to pay child support is to quit your job -- work under the table for cash -- present yourself as "poor" to the courts -- make sure you don't have anything that can be attached from a legal judgement. Meanwhile, of course, you may be living very comfortably with a new girlfriend and new children! Some professions are very well suited to this -- lawyers and doctors are often very able to hide income, as are people in "cash for service" businesses like landscapers or contractors.
SUING someone who is hiding income is an exercise is futile frustration and almost never works. Some of these men are virtual artists at hiding income from their ex's and their children.
The whole "schtick" of refusing to pay child support is to quit your job -- work under the table for cash -- present yourself as "poor" to the courts -- make sure you don't have anything that can be attached from a legal judgement. Meanwhile, of course, you may be living very comfortably with a new girlfriend and new children! Some professions are very well suited to this -- lawyers and doctors are often very able to hide income, as are people in "cash for service" businesses like landscapers or contractors.
SUING someone who is hiding income is an exercise is futile frustration and almost never works. Some of these men are virtual artists at hiding income from their ex's and their children.
2
Not to mention that it seems to be fiscally insane -- keeping someone in jail is extremely expensive, and while they're in jail, they can't earn anything, meaning that the state has to provide more support to the children.
3
I know someone who is living this right now. He has resigned to the fact that he will end up in jail. It is so sad because now he has no home, no money, small jobs, and he barely sees his kids. This system needs to be changed. It is a vicious cycle that hurts the most vulnerable population.
228
I know men that specifically do not look for work because they've been rejected so many times over the child-support garnishments coming up in employment screens. They have moved back in with their parents and do odd jobs and receive cash. No assets are in their name. No bank accounts. To avoid jail they go to the routine court hearing, three times a year, with the same result, just to avoid the bench warrant. Both sides are extremely bitter so the mother seeing her ex trapped in this state is a mild satisfaction. It doesn't financially benefit the kids at all and is self-defeating, which defeats the reasoning of child support as a legal invention meant to alleviate the symptoms of divorce and broken relationships. Blocking the poor from even any possibility of upward mobility is a defeat for us all. Jail needs to be removed as a punishment reserved only for those with means who purposefully try to cloak their assets and child support requirements need to be guided based on the ability to pay and re-evaluated when the assets, incomes and living circumstances of BOTH parents change.
Maybe he will head down to Mexico to start a new life like so many others that have been squeezed out by oppressive consequences. The ones that can't go end up as grist for the legal mill.
I am living this same reality as we speak! I have been cycling on and off various different friends and family members couches and spare rooms because the court ordered A&C support does not leave me enough to live. I am one of the lucky ones!
Even though I have never been unemployed my A&C support was set so high in 2007, before the market collapsed, and I have been applying to the superior court since 2008 for a reduction with no success. All my personal assets are gone. Luckily my car is paid for and I can get to work. My drivers license is suspended regularly roughly every 3-4 months and I have to purge the warrant usually $200 -$500 and I have to pay the state of NJ $100 each time to get my license "restored" even though I did not have a driving infraction to warrant suspending my license to begin with. This vicious cycle is responsible for keeping my where I am. I have no money to live let alone invest in my business to grow it. The driving license suspensions keep me in my office even though it would be more productive for me to be seeing clients and potential clients. I purge the warrants and DL suspensions when I have extra money, which is next to never. It is a vicious cycle keeping me from reaching my full potential and I am one of the lucky ones. The suicide rate among divorced men is very high, especially if they have kids. We need to change this system!
Even though I have never been unemployed my A&C support was set so high in 2007, before the market collapsed, and I have been applying to the superior court since 2008 for a reduction with no success. All my personal assets are gone. Luckily my car is paid for and I can get to work. My drivers license is suspended regularly roughly every 3-4 months and I have to purge the warrant usually $200 -$500 and I have to pay the state of NJ $100 each time to get my license "restored" even though I did not have a driving infraction to warrant suspending my license to begin with. This vicious cycle is responsible for keeping my where I am. I have no money to live let alone invest in my business to grow it. The driving license suspensions keep me in my office even though it would be more productive for me to be seeing clients and potential clients. I purge the warrants and DL suspensions when I have extra money, which is next to never. It is a vicious cycle keeping me from reaching my full potential and I am one of the lucky ones. The suicide rate among divorced men is very high, especially if they have kids. We need to change this system!
Reading this article, you wouldn't know that those who fail to pay child support often do so because they just don't want to.
55
I'd say that Mr. Scott (and yes, I acknowledge his shooting was a crime and horrendous) was just such a person -- he earned $35,000 a year, but refused to pay about $6500 a year for the support of his own children. He also went ahead and remarried and had MORE children, before being able to secure the support of his FIRST family.
He is the very definition of this problem, and the reason that states have turned in desperation to jail time as a threat.
He is the very definition of this problem, and the reason that states have turned in desperation to jail time as a threat.
1
But that isn't true. Why have 23 people recommended this comment? Do people even read the articles?
"Unpaid child support became a big concern in the 1980s and ’90s as public hostility grew toward the archetypal 'deadbeat dad' who lived comfortably while his children suffered. Child support collections were so spotty that in the late 1990s, new enforcement tools such as automatic paycheck deductions were used. As a result, child support collections increased significantly, and some parents rely heavily on aggressive enforcement by the authorities."
This article isn't about fathers who refuse to provide child support, it's about fathers who are jailed because they *can't*.
"Unpaid child support became a big concern in the 1980s and ’90s as public hostility grew toward the archetypal 'deadbeat dad' who lived comfortably while his children suffered. Child support collections were so spotty that in the late 1990s, new enforcement tools such as automatic paycheck deductions were used. As a result, child support collections increased significantly, and some parents rely heavily on aggressive enforcement by the authorities."
This article isn't about fathers who refuse to provide child support, it's about fathers who are jailed because they *can't*.
Did you actually READ the article and the statistics it provides?
We are living in an awkward tension between punishing divorcing breadwinners, who leave spouses with children, and complete adult freedom to enter into and leave unions that become unappealing.
When the battle is pitted between adults and dependent children, the goal should be to protect the interests of the children. They are the future. They are likely collateral damage in divorcing homes. They were not the explicit cause of the divorce, unless one assumed that bringing new lives into the world was without its challenges to the adults who initiated these acts.
So, yes, while punishing child support scofflaws is tough; I am mindful particularly of the women who are left alone with the responsibility of children. We have stripped societal shame from divorce with two dire consequences. First, more homes are put into this awful position, on the premise that a divorce is better than a "bad" marriage. Second, as divorce creaks through society, it is the middle and lower classes who are paying dearly for the sins of the upper classes. Left with few economic options, a divorced middle class spouse will be in dire straits.
We have come to the knowledge that you cannot punish your was to good behavior. The Black community, encumbered with racist overtones, is a strong example of this fact. So, too, with divorcing spouses who were found to be "at fault" by the court.
When society enlarges the zone of what is permissible, as in divorce, we all pay a higher price.
When the battle is pitted between adults and dependent children, the goal should be to protect the interests of the children. They are the future. They are likely collateral damage in divorcing homes. They were not the explicit cause of the divorce, unless one assumed that bringing new lives into the world was without its challenges to the adults who initiated these acts.
So, yes, while punishing child support scofflaws is tough; I am mindful particularly of the women who are left alone with the responsibility of children. We have stripped societal shame from divorce with two dire consequences. First, more homes are put into this awful position, on the premise that a divorce is better than a "bad" marriage. Second, as divorce creaks through society, it is the middle and lower classes who are paying dearly for the sins of the upper classes. Left with few economic options, a divorced middle class spouse will be in dire straits.
We have come to the knowledge that you cannot punish your was to good behavior. The Black community, encumbered with racist overtones, is a strong example of this fact. So, too, with divorcing spouses who were found to be "at fault" by the court.
When society enlarges the zone of what is permissible, as in divorce, we all pay a higher price.
6
The divorce rate among the college-educated is something like 4%. The folks not paying child support? Aren't folks who have the MEANS to do so but refuse on principle.
Most divorces are brought by women.
The essential problem is that you cannot pass a law that forces biological parents to love their children and do whatever it takes to rise them in an environment where they can learn what it means to be a mature man or woman. State sanctioned contraceptives, abortions, divorces, custody arrangements etc, etc. are just a nasty slippery slope that puts governments in the role of arbitrator of personal relationships and family life. And we call on them to do more of it as policing costs go through the roof! The financial cost to a broken culture can be enough to crush a nation (can you say Greece).
1
This is yet another reminder that the worst crime you can commit in this country is to be poor, even as millions are pushed toward and into poverty by our economic system.
40
I see this as what happens when the state refuses to accept its responsibility to care for those in need. The attempt to punish low-income fathers is simply an attempt to shift the burden of the social safety net from the state to the individual. This benefits only those who, like the majority of Republicans, want to lower taxes on the wealthy and pass the costs of the social safety net onto those who can least afford it.
29
Is it preferable to eliminate choice and personal responsibility, then, for the poor?
Yes, child support laws ensure the burden of financial support leis where it firmly belongs - on the children's two parents.
Yes, child support laws ensure the burden of financial support leis where it firmly belongs - on the children's two parents.
NO, this isn't "an attempt to shift the burden of the social safety net from the state to the individual." It is an attempt to assure the taxpayers aren't played for suckers by irresponsible adults that are only concerned with the physical pleasure of conceiving a child and not how to support, nourish and educate them over the long haul of building a responsible educated citizen. Higher income taxpayers are already paying to raise their children, why should they be expected to carry the burden for someone that isn't paying even a token amount toward the support of the children they had a part in conceiving?
Good grief: when the state -- the state!-- refuses to accept its responsibility?
Lots of fun fathering babies; much less so rearing them responsibly and getting up every morning to go to a job you hate just so that you can give them the things they deserve from their parent.
Lots of fun fathering babies; much less so rearing them responsibly and getting up every morning to go to a job you hate just so that you can give them the things they deserve from their parent.
Nice headline. How about "Live with your wife so you both can better afford your children. Stay out of jail. Keep your job. Teach this to your children. Repeat."
79
Amen!
Yeah, and then your wife leaves you and you go to jail.
Come on.
Come on.
Mos divorces are initiated by the wife.
Maybe, just maybe it is time to look at telling the potential parents that it is NOT A RIGHT to reproduce yourself when you do not have the ability to raise the child. Also, that young women should always be in mind that an absent dad and his contributions to child care are a greater probability then 50% in a marriage. Use birth control and many of these issues will not arise.
98
My goodness! How dare you speak this much truth all in one missive!
2
"Maybe, just maybe it is time to look at telling the potential parents that it is NOT A RIGHT to reproduce yourself when you do not have the ability to raise the child."
Okay - so childbearing is a privilege, and a privilege that needs to be taken away from the poor. So, what would that look like? Obviously jailing men for having children while poor is not working, and withdrawing support for poor women has not stopped them from having children. So where to next? Mandatory monthly pregnancy tests for women and forced abortions for those who can't prove they meet minimum income requirements? State enforced iud for every American girl on her thirteenth birthday with removal contingent on a credit check and assets review? House the poor in single-sex barracks under tight control and early curfew and release them only to go to the McDonalds or Walmart to work their shift?
You want to see this happen, so let's hear some details.
Okay - so childbearing is a privilege, and a privilege that needs to be taken away from the poor. So, what would that look like? Obviously jailing men for having children while poor is not working, and withdrawing support for poor women has not stopped them from having children. So where to next? Mandatory monthly pregnancy tests for women and forced abortions for those who can't prove they meet minimum income requirements? State enforced iud for every American girl on her thirteenth birthday with removal contingent on a credit check and assets review? House the poor in single-sex barracks under tight control and early curfew and release them only to go to the McDonalds or Walmart to work their shift?
You want to see this happen, so let's hear some details.
2
Brad,
Two comments 1) be aware that mothers can also pay child support and 2) child support compliance is remarkably high, nowhere near as low as 50%. Compliance problems typically present themselves with either a situation of chronic unemployment or a self-employed individual with variable income.
Two comments 1) be aware that mothers can also pay child support and 2) child support compliance is remarkably high, nowhere near as low as 50%. Compliance problems typically present themselves with either a situation of chronic unemployment or a self-employed individual with variable income.
1
Ok, so I get not being able to afford paying that much, but what I do not understand is , if this was "the best job he ever had", why would he not be able to pay child support at all? Everyone has an obligation to pay for their children, to say he was just "too poor" is a cop out. He had a responsibility, and as a man he needed to help support his kid/s, either way its no reason to shoot the man, because now he is no good to anyone, other than the little SS benefits his children will receive.
31
Actually Social Security Survivor benefits are extremely generous. The children will collect very handsomely until age 18, and until the youngest is 16, the MOTHER will also collect a generous stipend.
None of this, of course, makes up for the loss of a father in a child's life, nor justifies the shooting of Mr. Scott.
However, he did earn $35,000 at the point he refused to pay support. A child support order for 2 children would have cost approximately 18% of that, or roughly $6500 a year. I'm sorry, but that is not overly expensive nor is it punitive -- in fact, I would love to see anyone here who could manage to raise two children on $6500 a year.....with diapers, formula, clothing, medical care, day care, school costs, etc.
Isn't the TRUTH that Mr. Scott wanted to "move on" with his life, and have fun dating and partying -- rather than support his kids? He clearly had the money to support them, but didn't want to give up his adult pleasures in order to do so. As a result, it fell on SOCIETY to try to compel him to pay -- and even JAIL did not work. He wasn't jailed without multiple warnings and citations and summons to court -- the procedure likely took several years. The reality is he courted disaster by REFUSING to pay his obligation to his children, and DUMPING that obligation on the taxpayer.
None of this, of course, makes up for the loss of a father in a child's life, nor justifies the shooting of Mr. Scott.
However, he did earn $35,000 at the point he refused to pay support. A child support order for 2 children would have cost approximately 18% of that, or roughly $6500 a year. I'm sorry, but that is not overly expensive nor is it punitive -- in fact, I would love to see anyone here who could manage to raise two children on $6500 a year.....with diapers, formula, clothing, medical care, day care, school costs, etc.
Isn't the TRUTH that Mr. Scott wanted to "move on" with his life, and have fun dating and partying -- rather than support his kids? He clearly had the money to support them, but didn't want to give up his adult pleasures in order to do so. As a result, it fell on SOCIETY to try to compel him to pay -- and even JAIL did not work. He wasn't jailed without multiple warnings and citations and summons to court -- the procedure likely took several years. The reality is he courted disaster by REFUSING to pay his obligation to his children, and DUMPING that obligation on the taxpayer.
4
Though the Times was not able to confirm it because of privacy laws, Mr. Scott claimed the payments he made at that time were misdirected to the wrong person.
If Scott ever held a job long enough to have enough points to get SS benefits! So, probably more than these poor children would have ever received.
2
Men need to step up to the plate and pay their child support. No if ands or buts. However, failure to pay child support is not a capital offense.
The communities in which these men live need to make it clear to them that not paying child support is unacceptable and the community including their church will make sure they know it. The people who suffer are the kids. If a man can father children, he should support them. If he is unable or unwilling to support his children, he shouldn't father them. Its just that simple.
I fear that the violence suffered by Mr. Scott art the hands of an out of control criminal in a police uniform will undermine the progress we have made in making men take their child support responsibilities seriously. These two issue must be separated and dealth with.
The communities in which these men live need to make it clear to them that not paying child support is unacceptable and the community including their church will make sure they know it. The people who suffer are the kids. If a man can father children, he should support them. If he is unable or unwilling to support his children, he shouldn't father them. Its just that simple.
I fear that the violence suffered by Mr. Scott art the hands of an out of control criminal in a police uniform will undermine the progress we have made in making men take their child support responsibilities seriously. These two issue must be separated and dealth with.
10
Unfortunately, there are now communities full of people for whom "responsibility" is non-existent.
The greatest loss to our society has been its moving away from the concept of "personal responsibility". That responsibility has gradually been handed to the government, whom people see as this benevolent caretaker.
Well, this is the logical next step when government tries to impose responsibility. When through the police department, it becomes increasingly aggressive. When through the courts, it incarcerates too many people.
Responsibility, properly placed where it belongs, on the individual, would entail a lot less harsh government.
The greatest loss to our society has been its moving away from the concept of "personal responsibility". That responsibility has gradually been handed to the government, whom people see as this benevolent caretaker.
Well, this is the logical next step when government tries to impose responsibility. When through the police department, it becomes increasingly aggressive. When through the courts, it incarcerates too many people.
Responsibility, properly placed where it belongs, on the individual, would entail a lot less harsh government.
9
Justice, then please PLEASE tell us your solution.
We tried for decades to go on "responsibility" and "moral obligation" -- only to see that a majority of men would simply refuse to pay. Some never pay one dime. It is awfully easy for some men in some professions to hide income -- to leave the state -- to work "under the table" for cash.
A lot of men want simply to "move on" after a divorce or break up. They lose all interest in the children once the romance with the mother is over. (Sometimes today, they father a child with a woman they have never really had a relationship with -- just a hook up or a baby mama!) And they want to date again, remarry and have MORE children. You can't do that if you have a big obligation tailing you -- it cuts into your ability to date, party, go on vacations or buy nice things like a new truck or premium cable TV or the latest smartphone.
So KNOWING THIS, and knowing that fully half of all child support is not collected (or only part is ever collected) -- WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? because we know men do not want to pay and will avoid paying if they can get away with it.
We tried for decades to go on "responsibility" and "moral obligation" -- only to see that a majority of men would simply refuse to pay. Some never pay one dime. It is awfully easy for some men in some professions to hide income -- to leave the state -- to work "under the table" for cash.
A lot of men want simply to "move on" after a divorce or break up. They lose all interest in the children once the romance with the mother is over. (Sometimes today, they father a child with a woman they have never really had a relationship with -- just a hook up or a baby mama!) And they want to date again, remarry and have MORE children. You can't do that if you have a big obligation tailing you -- it cuts into your ability to date, party, go on vacations or buy nice things like a new truck or premium cable TV or the latest smartphone.
So KNOWING THIS, and knowing that fully half of all child support is not collected (or only part is ever collected) -- WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION? because we know men do not want to pay and will avoid paying if they can get away with it.
4
This article doesn't mention how much of the monies owed by the men is actually interest and "processing fees" the fathers are obligated to pay for the courts to manage child support payments.
40
Let's see, if you're poor there are traps everywhere. Payday loans with usurious interest rates. Jurisdictions supported by traffic fines and penalties for missing payments. Debtors' prison for failure to pay child support. Not a lot of protection for you if you get behind in payments. I can see why Mr. Scott would run. People who feel trapped aren't always very rational.
90
Truthfully we do not know why Mr. Scott ran. His brother, Rodney, conjectures it was the child support warrant. Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Scott did not have his license with him and he apparently said (or someone else did after the fact) that he was buying the Mercedes which he was driving so had no registration. Was his license suspended for failure to pay child support? Should someone have had the car's registration? Maybe he was scared about something to do with the car situation. We will never know. Regardless, he should not have died.
Conflating a murder and a warped child support enforcement system is wrong. Separately evaluate the child support enforcement system, which after all provides for children to which the supporter is a parent not a stranger. Assess what may render a person less able to pay rather than encouraging payment. The bottom line is that the child needs support. The system to provide the support has to balance the child's need for support and the ability of the parent to pay, yes. But it also has to contain some effective enforcement mechanisms.
BUT also separately evaluate the use of deadly force regardless of why Mr. Scott ran.
Good journalism would not give the impression that an unjust child support system put him in a position to die without knowing more about his circumstances that day. He might have run for any number of reasons.
He did not deserve to die no matter why he ran.
Conflating a murder and a warped child support enforcement system is wrong. Separately evaluate the child support enforcement system, which after all provides for children to which the supporter is a parent not a stranger. Assess what may render a person less able to pay rather than encouraging payment. The bottom line is that the child needs support. The system to provide the support has to balance the child's need for support and the ability of the parent to pay, yes. But it also has to contain some effective enforcement mechanisms.
BUT also separately evaluate the use of deadly force regardless of why Mr. Scott ran.
Good journalism would not give the impression that an unjust child support system put him in a position to die without knowing more about his circumstances that day. He might have run for any number of reasons.
He did not deserve to die no matter why he ran.
Of course we can't know. But we do know the instinct- fight or flight. Cops, warrants, going to jail. I'm not trying to excuse anything Mr. Scott did, only that I can imagine the hopeless state he found himself in.
Can't be charitable at all to the officer who killed him. And the fact that he would have gotten away with it, if no video, makes me shudder.
Can't be charitable at all to the officer who killed him. And the fact that he would have gotten away with it, if no video, makes me shudder.
2
You make an excellent point. The child support enforcement system and the use of deadly force should not be part of the same story. We do not know why Mr. Scott ran. Should we accept his brother's understandably-biased explanation? Probably not. I am surprised the media hasn't investigated what was going on with the car situation but after the Rolling Stone UVA rape story, I know that every allegation is taken at face value and nothing is investigated. I don't believe Mr. Scott should have been killed in this situation but for all we know, he may have been stealing an automobile. If someone is on a test drive, they would have their license and the registration (and the potential seller) in the car, right? Mr. Scott had none of these. Doesn't anyone want to look into this? Will we have to wait for Slager's defense to explain it at trial?
Here in Florida, the Child Support/Dept of Revenue will do their best to ruin a workin mans life. I seen them make war era veterans homeless, take 65 percent of unemploument,Social security,income tax returns. While the mothers get defended by state lawyers,the fathers fend for themselves. Child support enforcement here has gone to far here, they need the president to step in. The power the hold, and the laws are designated to keep the state fat,& the poor incarcerated.
14
I worked in a cotton mill while my ex was repeatedly excused from paying child support; he worked on building the Alaskan pipeline and I was supposed to get 50$ a month. My son and I were on food stamps a lot because the hours were often short. The judge told me, "You made your bed you lie in it." I hoped he would be deprived of social security in his old age the same way he treated his helpless infant son. He had three more children.
If there was a real interest in justice the solutions would get money to kids, unfortunately the interest is in draconian punishment. It's been 40 years and I still feel angry. But, what I wanted was payment.
I was not prepared for the possibility that marriages fail. I was kicked out of Jr college when I became pregnant because women with children don't work. My family wanted nothing to do with me. It may seem backward now, but women and children are set up to fail. No one prepares you for the insane pointless abuse.
I wish Mr Scott's murder was not a conversation about child support. In the US 22% of children live in poverty. If we don't help young parents behave more responsibly that number will rise.
If there was a real interest in justice the solutions would get money to kids, unfortunately the interest is in draconian punishment. It's been 40 years and I still feel angry. But, what I wanted was payment.
I was not prepared for the possibility that marriages fail. I was kicked out of Jr college when I became pregnant because women with children don't work. My family wanted nothing to do with me. It may seem backward now, but women and children are set up to fail. No one prepares you for the insane pointless abuse.
I wish Mr Scott's murder was not a conversation about child support. In the US 22% of children live in poverty. If we don't help young parents behave more responsibly that number will rise.
43
The shocking number of children in the US living in poverty is DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to failure to collect child support. Almost none of those kids are actual orphans -- they HAVE fathers, who refuse to pay or are deadbeats.
6
"I wish Mr Scott's murder was not a conversation about child support."
Is the virtual debtor prison of child support too uncomfortable to you? Because if it weren't for that cycle, Mr. Scott would likely be not only alive, but possibly living more productively.
Is the virtual debtor prison of child support too uncomfortable to you? Because if it weren't for that cycle, Mr. Scott would likely be not only alive, but possibly living more productively.
2
Here's a tip: If you're ordered to pay child support, start paying it, no matter what. Figure out a way to pay it every month. That's before trips to the bar, dinners out, or presents for your new girlfriend. That's before making new babies that will also turn out to be very expensive, regardless of whether you stay with the mother. Because you know what? That baby still needs stuff every month. That baby needs to eat every month, whether you're with its mother or not.
There's no way this guy's child support magically turned into $8k in a couple of months. How many men decide that not working is the best answer in this situation? Well, not working messes it up for everyone, including yourself, and gets away from you faster than you could ever imagine. The bitter reality, too, is that if a guy can't stand up and take responsibility for what's his, how good of an employee is he going to be? Would YOU hire someone who was unemployed for the sake of not paying child support? I wouldn't.
There's no way this guy's child support magically turned into $8k in a couple of months. How many men decide that not working is the best answer in this situation? Well, not working messes it up for everyone, including yourself, and gets away from you faster than you could ever imagine. The bitter reality, too, is that if a guy can't stand up and take responsibility for what's his, how good of an employee is he going to be? Would YOU hire someone who was unemployed for the sake of not paying child support? I wouldn't.
106
Carrie: AMEN. A lot of the men discussed here had good jobs -- they were not indigent. They CHOOSE not to pay. They CHOOSE to start a new relationship and have more children, when they could not support the FIRST set of children.
I'd love to know (though I sure can guess!) how often they eat out....go on vacations...date around....have premium cable TV and fancy smart phones....buy new cars or fancy sneakers....or anything else that should come SECOND after you support your OWN CHILDREN.
The majority of men who get into this fix, have "moved on" to a new girlfriend or wife, and new babies -- before supporting their FIRST family. This is obscene and immoral, and society needs to call it what it is -- WRONG.
I'd love to know (though I sure can guess!) how often they eat out....go on vacations...date around....have premium cable TV and fancy smart phones....buy new cars or fancy sneakers....or anything else that should come SECOND after you support your OWN CHILDREN.
The majority of men who get into this fix, have "moved on" to a new girlfriend or wife, and new babies -- before supporting their FIRST family. This is obscene and immoral, and society needs to call it what it is -- WRONG.
11
What an awful, cruel, dishonest take. You completely overlook the facts presented in this article and instead substitute ugly fantasies about why these men can't pay child support. Like Ronald Reagan with his imaginary welfare queens, you've concocted a fantasy designed to hurt poor people who can't pay their bills.
4
How do I know that a woman who has made more than one false child support claim beaten by a male armed with DNA test results would be a great employee? Maybe she is so hard-up for cash that she would be willing to embezzle funds? This gross generalization of people is really unwarranted. People make mistakes and that includes producing unwanted children. If the deadbeat father was proven to be hiding assets from lien or seizure that is one thing, it's completely different when you subject a human being to the closest thing you can get to a debtor's prison. Denying men the ability to obtain an income by killing off their job prospects entirely is not a logical move to make to get the mother at the other end excited that a check will soon arrive. It's also a drain on law enforcement and taxpayer resources to write bench warrants and send sheriff's deputies out to collect the jobless/income-less father, who can't be made to sit in jail forever since that's clearly not constitutional. It also pushes more of these men into cash-based economies (like drug sales) to avert the child support system. If they can't get a job because of their criminal justice records and the child-support flags on their credit reports, then earning an income in the black market becomes far more attractive. And that benefits society HOW, exactly?
2
I have absolutely no sympathy for people who don't pay child support. I ended up paying child support for my two boys for over 20 years (yep over 20 because my youngest did not graduate on time and ended up getting his GED). The lovely state of Minnesota not only does not reduce the amount owed when one child graduates, but to add insult they do an automatic cost of living increase every 2 years without having to go to court, and garnishment is automatic. I was in the military so garnishment was easy for them. Even though I had remarried and had a second family, the State and Military didn't care, we lived on $400-500 a month for years. As the judge put it, my obligation to my first family came first.
There is no reason why anyone should fail to pay, or fall behind on their payments. It's called budgeting your money!
There is no reason why anyone should fail to pay, or fall behind on their payments. It's called budgeting your money!
52
That's an easy thing to say when you have a job and an employer (like the military) willing to overlook your child support status.
Employers across different states are permitted to reject job applicants because of their child-support status. If I was running a business I would consider state garnishment payroll paperwork to be a nightmare and avoid doing it if I can--and that means tossing resumés of deadbeat dads in the bin. No job for you.
Thank your lucky stars you completed your child support so if you go into the private sector after you get your DD214, your veterans status and lack of a child-support indicator on your credit reports will make you look like a star candidate for any employer. Had you quit the military early and were still paying child support, you would probably be singing a different tune right now.
And better show up to any flash hearing over your child support case. If you don't turn up, that can result in a bench warrant and now you have a criminal record.
Employers across different states are permitted to reject job applicants because of their child-support status. If I was running a business I would consider state garnishment payroll paperwork to be a nightmare and avoid doing it if I can--and that means tossing resumés of deadbeat dads in the bin. No job for you.
Thank your lucky stars you completed your child support so if you go into the private sector after you get your DD214, your veterans status and lack of a child-support indicator on your credit reports will make you look like a star candidate for any employer. Had you quit the military early and were still paying child support, you would probably be singing a different tune right now.
And better show up to any flash hearing over your child support case. If you don't turn up, that can result in a bench warrant and now you have a criminal record.
2
*You had a job.* Are we so clueless that we don't understand that not everyone can get a job that pays enough to cover the child support payments? Particularly once they're jailed and their license is suspended? Most of these people are living in poverty!
No one is suggesting not mandating child support if the man can afford to pay it.
No one is suggesting not mandating child support if the man can afford to pay it.
3
I paid support for over 16 years and disagree.I had some periods of unemployment, and a car was on the verge of conking out when my parents helped and gave me a car they no longer needed. 4 years before the support order ended, when I couldn't get employment in my profession, I got tendinitis working at a lousy job and that prevented my working for months. You project too much from your own experience, even those intent on paying in full can and do fall into arrears.
The problem is with the misguided misnomer known as child support. Supporting a child financially is a choice by the father and/or mother in a personal pact that the government has no business or moral right to interfere in. We have allowed the government to regulate every minutiae of our lives to the point that some legislators still want to regulate what a woman does with her uterus. When is enough enough? Stop this madness and deregulate individuals so true autonomy and freedom can exist. Shrink the size of government to its necessary functions such as roads, police, firefighters, etc., and get rid of the rest.
My advice if you owe child support that you do not want to pay or cannot pay is to leave the US forever. Go beyond the reach of its unjust legal system until it reforms by deregulating individuals, or the system inevitably implodes.
My advice if you owe child support that you do not want to pay or cannot pay is to leave the US forever. Go beyond the reach of its unjust legal system until it reforms by deregulating individuals, or the system inevitably implodes.
8
Left unsaid here is that the taxpayer is paying when the father does not.
25
As long as the state has an interest in the well-being of children, then states will continue to regulate the payment of child support. If fathers don't pay, the states will. Taxpayers are not largely uninterested in subsiding the welfare of children sired by fathers who "opt out" of child support.
1
Why are people consistently trying to create a two tier justice system for those who are poor and those who are not? As well as a two tier tax system.
Not living up to your societal responsibility should be met with the same repercussions.
Not living up to your societal responsibility should be met with the same repercussions.
21
Incarceration for failure to pay is not the answer. Although that is the subject of this article and discussion, the failure of those fathers to pay is still the far greater issue. The very poor still need child support, and those fathers still need to pay something.
The answer lies somewhere between, “My husband bears no responsibility for his family,” and the husband's incarceration. This is an excellent start.
The answer lies somewhere between, “My husband bears no responsibility for his family,” and the husband's incarceration. This is an excellent start.
13
I agree that jail is problematical in many situations. It's supposed to be the "big stick" that scares men into paying, but clearly it is failing in many cases.
But then I ask you -- and others here -- what is YOUR solution? We have a society where nearly half of all non-custodial fathers pay either NOTHING or pay a fraction of what is owed -- driving their children into poverty on welfare and food stamps.
Surely THAT Is not acceptable either. What is the answer? To let them get away without paying? To accept levels of child support so low, that the custodial parent cannot survive except on welfare?
But then I ask you -- and others here -- what is YOUR solution? We have a society where nearly half of all non-custodial fathers pay either NOTHING or pay a fraction of what is owed -- driving their children into poverty on welfare and food stamps.
Surely THAT Is not acceptable either. What is the answer? To let them get away without paying? To accept levels of child support so low, that the custodial parent cannot survive except on welfare?
9
As usual, we get a one-sided account to make the point that seems important today. Tomorrow, it may be important that children seldom receive support from their fathers, and so we will hear a different account of the facts. This article is so one sided, it doesn't recognize the irony in Mr. Scott's statement that he "lost what he called 'the best job I ever had' when he spent two weeks in jail" for failure to pay support.
Earning $35,000/year at the time, with a child support order based on minimum wage, Mr. Scott was brought before the court, supposedly because his payments were misdirected in 2003, though they apparently had never before been misdirected. Mr. Scott is the kind of guy who runs away from his Mercedes to avoid talking to the police and fights police officers who try to arrest him. He should not be shot for that but neither should he be taken at his word.
Earning $35,000/year at the time, with a child support order based on minimum wage, Mr. Scott was brought before the court, supposedly because his payments were misdirected in 2003, though they apparently had never before been misdirected. Mr. Scott is the kind of guy who runs away from his Mercedes to avoid talking to the police and fights police officers who try to arrest him. He should not be shot for that but neither should he be taken at his word.
69
The article was highlighting a problem. It fully acknowledged that there were problems with child support and then rightly questioned the utility and morality of child support requirements that a poor man cannot meet, compounded with jail time and the loss of driver's licenses, which create a Catch-22 situation akin to that of 19th-century debtor's prison. I too wonder why Scott was buying a Mercedes when he was behind on child support, but that's a different issue than the patently amoral and counterproductive situation depicted in this article.
1
Well, at least you agree that whatever he did was not a capital offense.
You know what the Republicans who read this are thinking and you know that the progressive Left has a reasonable answer, but be that as it may, here we are. The custodial parent in poor families, the one who sits up all night with a sick child, who prepares the meals, washes the clothes, and oversees the homework, doesn't get alimony. He or she must work if work and day care are available, and the noncustodial parent, who is not "on" around the clock, must help financially. It's a shame, but true, that under the system we have the noncustodial parent must often be forced to do so.
15
Let's remember WHY most of these men run away from their obligations:
1. They are angry and vindictive towards the ex wife or girlfriend, whom they do not love anymore.
2. They want to "move on" with their lives -- many already have -- they have new relationships and often new OFFSPRING that command their attention and money.
3. It is awfully convenient to be able to walk away, and dump the unpleasant obligation for children (perhaps kids you barely know, or whom you've lost interest in) on Uncle Sam.
4. Part of the American myth of "A New Life" or "Starting Over" is the clean slate -- and one way to get a clean slate is to eliminate your obligation to the past.
5. The damage done to children here -- unmentioned in the article! -- is vast, obscene and just off the charts. Whole generations of children, especially in poor areas, are growing up fatherless. Nearly all those children DO have biological fathers who are alive -- they are not orphans -- but their fathers ignore and neglect them, and are not part of their lives.
1. They are angry and vindictive towards the ex wife or girlfriend, whom they do not love anymore.
2. They want to "move on" with their lives -- many already have -- they have new relationships and often new OFFSPRING that command their attention and money.
3. It is awfully convenient to be able to walk away, and dump the unpleasant obligation for children (perhaps kids you barely know, or whom you've lost interest in) on Uncle Sam.
4. Part of the American myth of "A New Life" or "Starting Over" is the clean slate -- and one way to get a clean slate is to eliminate your obligation to the past.
5. The damage done to children here -- unmentioned in the article! -- is vast, obscene and just off the charts. Whole generations of children, especially in poor areas, are growing up fatherless. Nearly all those children DO have biological fathers who are alive -- they are not orphans -- but their fathers ignore and neglect them, and are not part of their lives.
6
This is like any debtors' prison laws of the 19th century and before - it makes no sense. Someone who is locked up cannot earn money to pay a debt.
155
But these are mostly men who have clearly established they REFUSE to pay -- even when they have good jobs. You clearly don't know any women who tried to navigate this system, sometimes for decades -- never collecting a dime from a man who is angry or selfish, and wants to punish the mother (or who has lost all interest in the children, once the relationship is over).
The problem with your theory is that not only do children suffer here -- living in poverty, living without a father in their lives -- but the true cost is dumped on the taxpayer. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and children's lives that are damaged. This is not a small thing, like an unpaid parking ticket.
The problem with your theory is that not only do children suffer here -- living in poverty, living without a father in their lives -- but the true cost is dumped on the taxpayer. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, and children's lives that are damaged. This is not a small thing, like an unpaid parking ticket.
2
Didn't the NYT have an article on this a little while ago which called this policy for what it is? It's called debtors' prison. It's what most countries did in the 19th century and what America does in the 21st. Throwing people in jail because they owe other people money is morally repugnant, especially if they are poor, but even if they are rich.
214
White collar criminals, like Bernie Madoff, get thrown in jail because they owe other people money that they secured by fraud. Why you would want to let these folks out of jail is beyond me.
1
Child custody payments are not debts. Debts are money owed on loans.
4
What is even more morally repugnant is people producing offspring and expecting the government to raise their offspring. Then on top of that republicans making it as hard as possible or even impossible in most states in this country for people to curtail that breeding. They expect people to be celibate if they are poor but that is inhuman and deprives people of human contact and that causes violence and mental illness. That is how people in the middle east get young men to strap bombs on their chest and blow up market places, they first deprive them of the means to ever get married by forcing them to be able to afford to get married first and they make sure that they can never have sex unless they are married. It makes for a ready army of men who are angry and have no reason to live.
It is the reason that polygamy was outlawed in all first world countries, because only rich men can afford to have a bunch of wives, so they get all the wives and the poor get none and that makes them a very dangerous bunch.
You want to stop all this insanity, make birth control free and easy to get, force public schools to drop the religious abstinence only programs and provide real reproductive education, and stop allowing republicans to make cruel, invasive, unconstitutional anti-abortion laws.
It is the reason that polygamy was outlawed in all first world countries, because only rich men can afford to have a bunch of wives, so they get all the wives and the poor get none and that makes them a very dangerous bunch.
You want to stop all this insanity, make birth control free and easy to get, force public schools to drop the religious abstinence only programs and provide real reproductive education, and stop allowing republicans to make cruel, invasive, unconstitutional anti-abortion laws.
6
"But the Georgia Supreme Court ruled against them, saying they did not have a categorical right to a lawyer." This is obscene. I can't imagine how the justices could make this ruling and still be allowed to keep their jobs and hold their heads up. These rulings and laws that penalize poorer working dads by taking their drivers' licenses, laying heavy fines, and giving them jail time don't make sense. And I'm saying that as someone who knows what it's like to live in poverty when a father cannot pay, because he's been sent to prison for failure to pay (enough) child support.
182
it's all a money making machine. grim faced judges and lawyers only make money from drama. the court staff all go home knowing it is going to be a banner year at the expense of the children and men who want a part of their children's lives. opposing lawyers slap each other on the backs at exclusive clubs displaying broad smiles and winks about being on the take. try going to court without an attorney and see how that works out for you. the system executed this man, and the child welfare system set him on the path to that day.
2
In Georgia if you don't qualify for aid, then you go to the back of the enforcement line. The state will only collect child support its self, not payments for medical or school, camps, college. So that forces most to go hire an attorney $3-5k retainer. I got $9k when I used a lawyer, less 3, I paid an attorney. Then I found out the judge had him pay the attorney another $2.
So this last time I went prose and got an order for $120k back. I must have been on Prose day, because only a couple of people had lawyers. The judge was letting his clerk write up the orders for divorce and child support. He told person after person to have the child support taken from the pay check up front. Everyone said no. They think the person will pay.
I regret, I did not do it.
But I saw someone give up over 15 years in the old Federal Retirement sercive CERS, quit to avoid paying child support. New wife didn't like the garnishment.
So this last time I went prose and got an order for $120k back. I must have been on Prose day, because only a couple of people had lawyers. The judge was letting his clerk write up the orders for divorce and child support. He told person after person to have the child support taken from the pay check up front. Everyone said no. They think the person will pay.
I regret, I did not do it.
But I saw someone give up over 15 years in the old Federal Retirement sercive CERS, quit to avoid paying child support. New wife didn't like the garnishment.
The 2012 Congressional Research Service Report lists state-by-state the type of charge and fines for failure to pay child support;very easy to navigate. The whole concept of criminalizing a debt including revoking a driver"s license or business license is punitive rather than addressing much of the underlying problem-lack of money. Jail certainly does not "help"the custodial parent collect and most assuredly doesn't help put money into the wallet of the one owing: I can guarantee that is why Walter Scott ran, knowing he would be taken in (AGAIN) due to failure to pay.
101
Taking away a drivers' licence just further financially cripples people even more. You Mercans have a funny idea of justice??
5
This is true when the parent cannot pay. There are many parents who can pay and should be subject to penalties and sanctions.
4
But they make a profit for the owners of the for profit jail. America is obscene.
2
Interesting that it's taken so long for the public to recognize the broken Child support system.
18
I wish that in Houston Texas child support was really enforced my ex husband still owes back child support, and our daughter is 30 now, I have always kept her case open. I have given them his new home address, then they say they need to know we're he works I give them that information still nothing has been done, it's always an excuse to this day he is behind more than $90,000.00. My daughter never suffered never went without I always worked supported my daughter my husband now helped me raise her from the age 5. But enough is enough it's time he paid up!!!
57
Really? How will it help your 30 daughter now? Does making her father a criminal make it all better?
This system is broken.
This system is broken.
9
And your daughter is now over 30? Maybe you should just give it up and move on with your life. This is from a woman who never received all the child support I was entitled to either, but at some point you have to realize you can't squeeze water from a stone. Let it go.
28
It's great that you were able to provide for your daughter during that time, and were blessed with a husband that "stepped up" to the plate. Now is the vendetta of getting the money really giving you pleasure or just haunting you like a horrid ghost?
As a man who has been on both sides of your story, only with an ex-wife who used forgery to try to up the ante (got caught), spent most of the money on herself (verified by my 25 year old son who lived the terror) I speak from a clear mindset.
Let it go. It's not a lottery and you're probably not going to get the payday. Would you give every cent to your daughter if he paid it all today (or any portion over the next years)? Probably not, because the way you wrote your comments it sounds like it's not about child support payments, it's all about child support payback!
Give it up, you already WON - or can't you see that? Have peace and stop looking behind and giving that loser your precious TIME!
As a man who has been on both sides of your story, only with an ex-wife who used forgery to try to up the ante (got caught), spent most of the money on herself (verified by my 25 year old son who lived the terror) I speak from a clear mindset.
Let it go. It's not a lottery and you're probably not going to get the payday. Would you give every cent to your daughter if he paid it all today (or any portion over the next years)? Probably not, because the way you wrote your comments it sounds like it's not about child support payments, it's all about child support payback!
Give it up, you already WON - or can't you see that? Have peace and stop looking behind and giving that loser your precious TIME!
16
Anyone who can afford to pay child support should pay. We should not condone in any way parents who can support their children and don't. However, in the US it's increasing becoming a crime to be poor - shame on us for allowing this travesty exist.
251
"Anyone who can afford to pay child support should pay."
There has to be a notion of, Does the punishment fit the crime? OK, it's wrong not to pay child support. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to punish offenders by throwing them in jail.
There has to be a notion of, Does the punishment fit the crime? OK, it's wrong not to pay child support. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to punish offenders by throwing them in jail.
22
Impe:
There is absolutely no sanction against a female who uses the support entirely for herself. Yes, in theory she is obligated to contribute money, but there is no no, enforcement against the female.
There is absolutely no sanction against a female who uses the support entirely for herself. Yes, in theory she is obligated to contribute money, but there is no no, enforcement against the female.
8
Non payment doesn't even go on their credit report.
1
My longtime career as an attorney crashed and burned after I was hit with an impossible "imputed income" support order. My law license was suspended; many clients had to retain new counsel in the middle of their cases. Fixed-fee clients demanded their money back.
I've been jailed, twice, each time in solitary confinement. Many people believe, erroneously, that support orders can be easily modified to reflect one's actual income; and that jail and licensing sanctions only happen to people who are able but who refuse to pay. There were, and are, other collateral consequences.
The kids are grown, but I'm still prohibited from working. I've had other jobs; these invariably end as soon as the employer receives the mandatory wage-garnishment order.
I thought I'd never see either the NYT or President Obama take an interest in these issues. Gentle readers, thank you for listening as life is lonely and dismal and you're the only people with whom I can share.
I've been jailed, twice, each time in solitary confinement. Many people believe, erroneously, that support orders can be easily modified to reflect one's actual income; and that jail and licensing sanctions only happen to people who are able but who refuse to pay. There were, and are, other collateral consequences.
The kids are grown, but I'm still prohibited from working. I've had other jobs; these invariably end as soon as the employer receives the mandatory wage-garnishment order.
I thought I'd never see either the NYT or President Obama take an interest in these issues. Gentle readers, thank you for listening as life is lonely and dismal and you're the only people with whom I can share.
516
The child support system is designed to assure that children's needs are paid for by the non-custodial parent as well as the parent who has custody. Notwithstanding the bent of this article, the principle purpose of the system is not to put men in jail. There are fail-safes along the way to protect non-custodial parents whose income has substantially decreased. The problem for poor people is that they don't have the money or the expertise to navigate the system. A lawyer with money has the ability and know-how to exercise his rights and does not end up in prison because he can't pay child support. Rather, you can pretty much count on the fact that MB chose NOT to pay child support. Feel sorry for the guy if you want. I think jail is a good place for him.
8
You may have been mistreated. I'll accept that but there are millions of fathers many lawyers, doctors and others who don't pay what they owe because they are so hooked in that nothing ever happens to them. There are some who are so hooked in that their wives, ex wives are forced to beg for pennies from them because their favorite judge issued an order that left the wife sometimes ild or handicapped out in the cold. Women have been on the sort end of the child support and marital estate distribution issues for a very long time. The problems suffered by men in this area shouldn't happen but they are by far the minority of cases.
8
Reading an actual 'deadbeat dad's response adds much to this reader's ability to feel the reality of this subject - the travesty of it. Thank you, MB, for your 2-cents-worth.
The saddest part of the story is that whether or not a father fell behind because his income shrunk (which happened even before the Great Recession), or out of carelessness or cockiness or anger, once he's an ex-con his earning capacity is almost always drastically affected, while the past sum owed is seldom adjusted. Crazy system.
The saddest part of the story is that whether or not a father fell behind because his income shrunk (which happened even before the Great Recession), or out of carelessness or cockiness or anger, once he's an ex-con his earning capacity is almost always drastically affected, while the past sum owed is seldom adjusted. Crazy system.
5
Debtor prison is alive and well for those whom society disdains. Egalitarianism remains a distant dream.
265
You can blame the Women's Law Center in Wash DC for pushing the states to enact policies that take a man's ability to work from him by having the state cancel Drivers licenses, professional licenses that make it impossible for the father to pay his child support. Then when he is far enough behind issue a warrant for his arrest and put him in jail, Ask the lawyers at the Women's Law Center for advise on how to fix the problem?
10
Pablo: I do agree that incarceration laws have been overused here, and against the wrong people at times, but what is YOUR solution? The ugly truth is that many men REFUSE TO PAY child support -- once they are done with a relationship with the mother (married or not), they lose most of their interest in the children and the financial support is a severe "drag" on their future dating lives. They feel they are paying for a mistake, or that the woman "rooked them in" with sex or offspring, and now they want to run away from their obligations.
For a couple of generations, we made that super-easy with no fault divorce laws -- lax collection of support -- and welfare for the abandoned mother, so that the father could feel "OK" about his decision to leave, since "Uncle Sam" was doing such a great job of supporting HIS children for him.
So if there is no threat of prison -- no threat of lost licenses -- what would incentivize men to SUPPORT their own children? Because the truth is that about 40% of them pay nothing and another 20% pay inconsistently or less than what is owed.
For a couple of generations, we made that super-easy with no fault divorce laws -- lax collection of support -- and welfare for the abandoned mother, so that the father could feel "OK" about his decision to leave, since "Uncle Sam" was doing such a great job of supporting HIS children for him.
So if there is no threat of prison -- no threat of lost licenses -- what would incentivize men to SUPPORT their own children? Because the truth is that about 40% of them pay nothing and another 20% pay inconsistently or less than what is owed.
10
No, society disdains the children who are an afterthought in all of this. None of the top commenters, including the one above, express even a moment's fleeting concern for kids who's parents not only don't live with them, but can't even make minimal payments towards their food, clothing, and shelter.
2
The reason these mothers are not required to work when their children are young is that the US does not pay a living wage. If the woman cannot earn a decent salary, it doesn't make economic sense for her to work outside the home.
But let's not pretend that mom's not working. Taking care of little kids is work.
But let's not pretend that mom's not working. Taking care of little kids is work.
213
Hogwash.
If they can bred 'em, then they need to work to fed 'em.
ANd if they are poor enough, the welfare system will pay for childcare.
And yeah if they sitting at home on their backside with no income except child support, food stamps etc then that means they are poor enough to get childcare through welfare and can Go To Work.
In any event, custody should go to the parent with the higher income and the better chance of being able to provide and pay for childcare to keep working.
If they can bred 'em, then they need to work to fed 'em.
ANd if they are poor enough, the welfare system will pay for childcare.
And yeah if they sitting at home on their backside with no income except child support, food stamps etc then that means they are poor enough to get childcare through welfare and can Go To Work.
In any event, custody should go to the parent with the higher income and the better chance of being able to provide and pay for childcare to keep working.
15
As a single father who raised two kids, I can tell you it is not work. I did not have a job. I did not have welfare or child support. I was financially able to stay home with my kids. When the recession hit and my income went to zero in 2009, I had to get a job. My youngest was 17 so he didn't need me to be home but I found it was very difficult to start work with no work experience. I had to work two low paying jobs for five years and now, as I start my seventh year, I finally have the career I wanted and will finally have a good income in only 18 months.
I can't imagine working a job and taking care of two kids by myself. That would have been incredibly hard. I don't think I could have done it. But staying home was very bad for me, it was a mistake. I should have found a part time job. Just staying home with the kids is not work, it was my pleasure. They were the center of my life.
I can't imagine working a job and taking care of two kids by myself. That would have been incredibly hard. I don't think I could have done it. But staying home was very bad for me, it was a mistake. I should have found a part time job. Just staying home with the kids is not work, it was my pleasure. They were the center of my life.
9
@Kate
Who is disputing that taking care of children is "not working". It is absolutely work, and for generations men and women alike held mothers in high esteem. When mothers are forced to "hire" someone to care for the kids, that cost is all too visible.
If the alternative is that we need "fully engaged Dads" to share half of the work at home, my sense is that we will depress the marriage rate, or increase the divorce rate, further before that happens. In upper class homes, neither men nor women really feel the brunt of childcare, as it comes from disposable income. In these homes, the feminist dream is thriving. However, if you believe, as it appears, that in lower class homes that we will somehow pay wages that allow a single parent to hold a job, put the children in institutional childcare, and still cover expenses, you are not realistic in your dreams.
Divorce is wreckage that upper class folks have laid in the lap of society. By removing the shame of divorce, outside the families if not within nuclear families, we have given ourselves permission to tear up vows and commitments that were most fundamentally important to the children that followed.
We cannot pay a way high enough to allow a single parent to both work and pay for someone to care for his/her children for the day. Even if we could, what is in it for the child.
A mom's work is both valuable and unique. The real tragedy is that we are arguing over economics long after feminism ripped up the rules.
Who is disputing that taking care of children is "not working". It is absolutely work, and for generations men and women alike held mothers in high esteem. When mothers are forced to "hire" someone to care for the kids, that cost is all too visible.
If the alternative is that we need "fully engaged Dads" to share half of the work at home, my sense is that we will depress the marriage rate, or increase the divorce rate, further before that happens. In upper class homes, neither men nor women really feel the brunt of childcare, as it comes from disposable income. In these homes, the feminist dream is thriving. However, if you believe, as it appears, that in lower class homes that we will somehow pay wages that allow a single parent to hold a job, put the children in institutional childcare, and still cover expenses, you are not realistic in your dreams.
Divorce is wreckage that upper class folks have laid in the lap of society. By removing the shame of divorce, outside the families if not within nuclear families, we have given ourselves permission to tear up vows and commitments that were most fundamentally important to the children that followed.
We cannot pay a way high enough to allow a single parent to both work and pay for someone to care for his/her children for the day. Even if we could, what is in it for the child.
A mom's work is both valuable and unique. The real tragedy is that we are arguing over economics long after feminism ripped up the rules.
4
Excellent reporting. It comes as no surprise that the threat of jail is being used to trap poor men in the vicious cycle when it should only be used to coerce those with an ability to pay. This is yet another case where the research should tell us what to do and credit to the Obama administration for trying to keep these very low-earning men out of prison for not paying on time. "Inputed income" sounds good, but it increasingly does not reflect the reality. These individuals in question are certainly not working at a full-time, median wage job in the vast majority of cases.
We should be looking to decrease the number of people incarcerated in this country, especially from non-violent crimes, not increase it. Jahmal Holmes' predicament seems like a disaster waiting to happen, another life set to be badly damaged or ruined because of a system designed to embarrass and/or jail men who can comfortably pay their child support, not a system that grasps just how little money these poor men possess.
We should be looking to decrease the number of people incarcerated in this country, especially from non-violent crimes, not increase it. Jahmal Holmes' predicament seems like a disaster waiting to happen, another life set to be badly damaged or ruined because of a system designed to embarrass and/or jail men who can comfortably pay their child support, not a system that grasps just how little money these poor men possess.
166
I hear you but they have children. Who should support them? Men make choices and then feel we should all say well they are poor they cannot pay. I get all the issues. No jobs, discrimination. All of it but there is something they have control over and they should exercise it. Sorry if that sounds harsh but its true.
Having said that Mr, Scott's death was a crime and a tragedy.
Having said that Mr, Scott's death was a crime and a tragedy.
19
This article puts the blame on the wrong party, the blame should be on the parents who have children when they cannot provide for them. There are too many children out there lacking the support they need to become productive and successful in life. While the courts/laws are partially to blame 90% of the blame is on the parent who does not pay/provide for their children.
I feel for this man and his family, but creating a life comes with obligations and if you cannot fulfill those obligations then invest in condoms or abstain altogether.
I feel for this man and his family, but creating a life comes with obligations and if you cannot fulfill those obligations then invest in condoms or abstain altogether.
24
I agree with Justice Holmes; it is awfully easy for a man to evade child support (or used to be) by quitting his job or working "under the table" and claiming he was poor.
Mr. Scott for example (and his shooting was horrific and unjustified) had a $35,000 job. In his part of the country, that's a good salary. He could afford to support his children. It should not fall to taxpayers to make up for the failures of men to pay child support.
The "traditional system" prior to these incarcerations, was for the courts to overlook failure to pay -- and often men would go on working without reporting income, the mothers would collect the full welfare package and the taxpayer was on the hook.
Mr. Scott for example (and his shooting was horrific and unjustified) had a $35,000 job. In his part of the country, that's a good salary. He could afford to support his children. It should not fall to taxpayers to make up for the failures of men to pay child support.
The "traditional system" prior to these incarcerations, was for the courts to overlook failure to pay -- and often men would go on working without reporting income, the mothers would collect the full welfare package and the taxpayer was on the hook.
8