Deadbeat Dads

Remove all ads!

This is a label that has always pissed me off. Once it is tacked onto some poor bastard, no matter how innocent he is, he's tainted for life. It's one of those "ad hominem" attacks that by its shock value makes it impossible to defend against it in the public eye (I see it on par as the question that is sometimes used as a catch 22 -- "have you stopped beating your wife?")

Everyone gets on this bandwagon, even other men (to be fair, they are usually siding with their girlfriend against her previous boyfriend) but there should be some rational before applying this sort of label to a guy.

I got to thinking about this when I read this article. I have never liked Levi but as long as he's not a convicted felon they should allow him decent access to the child. There is no evidence that I saw in this article that Levi hasn't paid (of course, there's no evidence proffered that he has paid either, but nevertheless, the onus should be on the Palins to prove that he hasn't paid before the boy is convicted in the public eye.

Any thoughts, my friends?

Spoiler

Johnston lawyer bristles at 'deadbeat dad' label

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Levi Johnston's lawyer is bristling at suggestions from Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's family that the 19-year-old is a deadbeat dad.

"I wish that Sarah Palin's father would get his facts correct, quite frankly," lawyer Rex Butler said Wednesday.

Johnston and Palin's daughter, 18-year-old Bristol, have a nearly four-month-old son, Tripp. Since the couple broke up, Johnston has claimed in several national television interviews the Palins were limiting his access to the boy.

Palin's father, Chuck Heath, claims in a story being published Friday in Us Weekly magazine that the unemployed Johnston isn't financially supporting the infant. He said he wishes Johnston would take some money from the interviews and buy diapers for Tripp.

Butler said Johnston was not paid for the interviews and he is tired of the Palin family's characterization of his client.

Heath was "trying to make the young man look like a deadbeat father and, you know, they may have a rude awakening one day if he tries to get custody," Butler said.


"They don't want to share his child with him like they should," he said.

Butler also suggested Johnston and Bristol Palin would likely still have a relationship if the families would stay out of it.

Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email by saying: "Bristol is focused on college, advocating abstinence and raising Tripp."

 

I liked how the attorney was 'bristling' but did not deny. That tells me all I need to know and, yes, I'm willing to hang a deadbeat dad in a heartbeat -- IMO it's up to the dad to prove he's doing everything he can, which should be quite easy.

Even when I was unemployed I continued to pay my ex child support -- at the full rate I had when I was employed -- I never tried to get it reduced. And I could prove it any time, or at least say it and prove it later. That said, denial of visitation for non-payment of child support is different state-by-state. If they are doing something illegal in Alaska, then the Palins should be held accountable.

My father did not pay child support for years when I was a kid. My mother made $90 a week working on an assembly line for Motorola. This was the sixties, but $90 a week didn't go very far and any amount from my father would have helped. Perhaps I'm a bit biased because of that, but I have no problems with the laws being placed on the books going after deadbeat dads. I have no problem in publicizing their names and faces in the media. IMO, deadbeat dads can and should be publically vilified at every opportunity.

 

I guess my personal experience is coloring my perceptions a bit, too -- I have been 2 days late paying my support (after having paid it on time for the previous 12 months) and they talk to me at the office there the same way they talk to the guy who hasn't paid in 40 months. The label is too easy to apply without any facts coming to bear on the person making the judgement.

If it is very clear that the guy is not making any effort to pay at all, then crucify him, of course, but I wish the media and the government agencies and especially the woman's friends and other members of society would hold off on applying that judgement except in cases where he really IS a deadbeat dad.

 

It is really annoying that people will apply this label without knowing the facts. When Rob was out of work he went without food and electric to make sure that he paid his child support. He even asked my mum to help him (which she did and he paid her back as soon as he could) but people still thought that he was a crap dad because him and his ex wife had divorced!

When I was a kid, we didn't have much money because my dad had died and my mum couldn't afford childcare to go out to work. However, there were some people that just assumed that my dad had buggered off and left us! They didn't even bother finding out the facts!

Anyway, the whole dead-beat dad thing is a toughy. There are some people that fully deserve the title but I think it's a case of a few bad apples spoiling the barrell

 

The parent that leaves is always the bad parent. When my ex left me and the kids, she was more concerned about the image it presented than about how it affected the kids. Sad. She got custody of the kids a year later and then I became the bad parent.

LKD: Late is late. Period. I always knew when my payment was due and made sure it got there well ahead of the due date. Deadbeats get their start with just one late payment -- the courts know this and would prefer to use a "scared straight" tactic than let your children suffer any more than they already have. I think having someone keeping the interest of the children in mind is a good thing, too often emotions get in the way and we lose sight of the real issue. Too many fathers (and mothers) look at child support as a payment to their ex -- it's not. It's money that goes to help your child.

Silvery: It's not just a few bad apples ... it's hundreds of thousands of bad apples (there are thousands of deadbeat parents in the Chicago area alone). I do not understand when parents put their own want and desires in front of their own dependant children's needs or use their children as instruments of revenge. Kudo's to Rob in sacrificing for his kid(s).

 

In an ideal world, that's true -- in principle I have no problem paying that money. But in practice it's just so much government hot air and BS. They most certainly have the system down to punish the parent who pays (in the vast majority of the cases the man) but after that the government has no effing idea how that money is spent. None. Period. They have no mechanism to check and see that the mother is using the money effectively. Even if it is brought to the attention of the court that the money is going to cocaine and smokes for the receiver, the punitive child care payments are still levied and the man must still pay even if the government knows damn well that the money is NOT going to help the kids. I used to believe that the government truly cared about the welfare of the kids. I don't now.

As for late is late, there is a world of difference between being late and flat out refusing to pay. There is also the fact that sometimes income dries up on people -- they get laid off, a check from a client bounces, there's all sorts of reasons that a payer might be a little late. To tar all of them with the same brush is unjust in the extreme. In no other area of law is the presumption of guilt so flagrantly obvious, which is in direct contravention of the whole "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" premise that we are so eager to apply to everyone BUT the victims of divorce. And yes, the main victims are the kids, but in most of the cases I know the kids are taken and have their minds poisoned against their fathers and there is nothing, nothing that he can do about it but watch everything he busted his ass for slip away and the courts provide no redress whatsoever.

Here in my province, the official line is "Payment of support should not be withheld if visitation orders are not followed. Visitation should not be withheld if payment orders are not followed."

In practice, though, men who do not pay are crucified. The ex need to nothing for the government to steamroll the guy. Women who withhold access for whatever reason are punished by . . . . nothing at all. Only if the guy has tons of money* to afford a lawyer can he even have a snowball's chance in the Sahara of even getting a judge to listen, and even then the orders passed down by the judge are ignored by the women with no consequences.

As I said, I don't like the real deadbeats -- those who flat out refuse to pay their money or follow court orders. But people today are too quick to slap that label on decent guys who are making an honest effort and forgoing necessities to get as much money to their kids as possible.


*which most of them don't because they are actualy paying their payments.

 

While I've never been divorced or had to pay child support I have many clients that are on both sides of this struggle.

From my experience the sentiment expressed above couldn't be further from the truth. There is no accounting as to how the support payments are made to justify that they are actually for the child. All of the payments are made out to the custodial parent (almost 100% of the time the mother) and they are free for her to use as she sees fit. As you can imagine, many fathers and father's rights groups take offense to this.

 

What every specific dollar goes to is completely immaterial. It costs extra to have more food, a larger place, and clothing -- that is what child support is for. Whether the custodial parent uses their paycheck to buy school clothes or the child support payment is a ridiculous argument. The child support payment is simply added to the pot for monthly living expenses -- whether or not the custodial parent needs it. I've seen all the different sides of the arguments and generally find them to be really petty.

I find it amazing that the non-custodial parent actually believes they have direct input in how the child is raised -- wrong. Parents got divorced for a reason, usually because they didn't see eye-to-eye on many issues including parenting. The custodial parent will raise the children in the way he or she sees fit. Period. When the non-custodial parent gave up custody they also gave up the right to have control over the child.

If the custodial parent is doing things which are illegal or harmful to the children, it is the duty of the non-custodial parent to bring these things to light and fight for custody. Failure to do so is simply accepting those things into your child's life.

Your 100% is also a bit off. In 2005, 16% of single parents were the father -- that number has been steadily growing over the past two decades.

 

That assumes that the non-custodial parent gave up that custody willingly and not under duress. That happens, but it isn't as common as you might think. In addition, there are caveats that can be written into the divorce agreements that should be followed if the custodial parent respects the law, but often those caveats are gleefully ignored by said custodial parent, all the while telling all and sundry that everything is the non-custodial parent's fault -- and everyone and their dog climbs onto the bandwagon.

In my experience the courts so blatently favor the woman to the exclusion of all consideration for the facts of the matter that it isn't even funny.

 

I guess it´s a lot harder for divorcees, because a commitment was made and broken. So then it raises questions and value judgements.
My mom never tried to get my biological father to pay alimony, but she said I could pursue it even after my ´legal´ childhood. I guess we´re cheating the dutch and british gov´ts, because all due alimony would be paid to compensate for child support.The guy still doesn´t trust us, and is irrationally paranoid. Last I heard, he became defensive when he heard I was doing karate. A disappointingly pathetic character, that always succeeded in insulting and humiliating me whenever we met.
A prime example of a deadbeat dad, I let him rot in Scotland. Good riddance.
(BTW, there´s nothing wrong with Scotland)