Deadbeat Parents Go to Jail, Even if They Have No Job?

Remove all ads!

I find this article a little disturbing. It's about sending parents who are behind on their child support payments (often referred to as deadbeat dads, as the vast majority are men) to jail, even if they are unable to pay due to long term unemployment.

Now, I'm all for coercing deadbeat dads who have the ability to pay up to actually make the payments. However, in the article linked below, you'll see that a lot of them being sent to prison are behind on their payments because they've been out of work for a long time. In some cases, about two years, and thus their unemployment benefits have run out. Furthermore, in child support cases, you do not get the presumption of innocence, in some states you aren't even granted an attorney, and you can be sent to jail without a formal trial. That's really problematic for me.

I would think failure to pay child support is a civil matter for starters (as opposed to criminal), and how does sending a guy to jail - where he cannot work mind you - help make him pay up? In the one example cited, there's an Iraq war vet who made all his child support payments for 10 years, and then fell behind when he lost his job two years ago. I mean, what's a guy to do? The fact that he had made the payments for 10 straight years certainly suggests that he was willing to pay, but it got to the point where he wasn't able to pay.

Link.

 

I agree, dads are often treated like second (or worse) class citizens, dont get me wrong, there are plenty of true deadbeats, but would'nt some kind of civil work scheme be more productive? e.g. 20 hours of picking up rubbish in city centres = your child support payment made... alot of fathers want to provide for their kids but cant, and would gladly participate in such a seheme.

 

After reading that I'm certain that I'll never get divorced... hmmm.....Nagging wife or buddying up to Bubba in your cold, empty cell? I'll take nagging wife for $800 Alex.

 

Hell I think I have a definition of a deadbeat dad and even I think it's highly inappropriate and even disgusting.

The CSA is bad enough in the UK, US seems to have it even worse!

 

It's a result of ultra-ideological feminism gone wild. I'm all for punishing the guys who have money and are just not paying because they are dirtbags, but if they were still married and a man lost his job and couldn't support his family the same way as he was before, the courts wouldn't dream of touching him. Why the big rush to punish divorced men?

Of course, I have a big dog in this race

 

I've seen this hundreds of times. In MA the courts are particularly hostile to fathers. It is a product of having judges appointed as opposed to elected. Most of them are all political appointees who in my opinion are not really qualified for the job.

One that I recall is a couple that got divorced because his business failed so the wife basically left him because he couldn't support the lifestyle she was accustomed to. Then the judge looked at their tax returns and based child support and alimony on an income stream that no longer existed. He had a job, but was making about 1/3rd of what he made before. The judge came to the conclusion that he was deliberately working at a lower paying job to spite his ex-wife and child. I believe he ended up fleeing to Florida to escape.

 

You know, that's a good point. Right now there are millions of fathers out of work, but we're only sending the ones that are out of work AND divorced to jail for not supporting the kids. A father who is unemployed is not bringing an income in to support his family, but so long as he is still married, it's OK.

Which would also be spiting himself. While I'm sure this DOES happen at times (just like there are divorced men who will "hide" savings in the accounts of their parents so the courts can't get a hold of it), I don't think there are a ton of guys who would deliberately earn less, because they'd be hurting themselves as well.

I think some of the laws are quite archaic when it comes to child support and alimony. They are based on a time that no longer exists. Many of these laws and the formulas they use to calculate alimony and child support have remained unchanged for the last 50 years or more in some cases. They date to a time when the husband was almost always the bread winner in families, and women tended to work part time, or at much lower salaries than their male counterparts.

Women's salaries are still lower than men's salaries - that's true - but the difference isn't nearly as great as what it was a generation ago. The percentge of households where the woman is the primary source of income is no longer negligibly small. One of the things I've seen happening recently with divorced couples with children is that they are splitting custody much more often. Since custody is split and the woman makes about the same as the man, it greatly reduces the amount of alimony and child support the guy is required to pay.

Out of curiosity, what happens if the woman makes more and they get a divorce? Is she required to pay the guy alimony? The reason I ask is because I've never actually seen this happen.

 

I dont see how that is illegal

 

It's basically like enforcing a contract between two separate entities. As long as you're married, you and the spouse are a single unit. When you get divorced, you're back to two units with a shared obligation that the courts step in to enforce. If you happened to get divorced with no child support orders or agreements, the courts can't touch you. There's no contract. (Which is not to say that your ex can't file motions to change that down the line.)

That all depends on what your lawyers work out, but it could go that way, yes.

 

One of my personal favorites is that in MA a parent is under no obligation to send their child to college. When the kid is 18, the parents can say "So long sonnie and have a nice life". However, if you are divorced the courts can and usually do force you to pay for the child's college education as a part of the "child support" calculation.

 

I can imagine that scenario... hmmm.... Mommy and Daddy already hate each other. I hate both of them as well. I want to go to college, but I sure don't want to pay for it. I know! Let's work on splitting mommy and daddy up, that way I get my free ride....

Some laws are just plain retarded. That is one of them.

 

The problem is that there isn't a law saying any such thing. In my opinion the Judiciary branch of the government has seized power from the executive and legislative branch and is basically creating law by interpreting existing laws however they want to.