The Red Tape Diaries, vol. 3...

[VocalMinority]

Our county prosecutor (hmmm...with elections around the corner...) is following up his "crackdown on deadbeat dads" of last fall/winter, with a warmer, fuzzier "reach-out" to fathers who've gotten behind in C/S due to the recession/unemployment, offering an amnesty period for them to come forward and work out payment plans to catch up.

So guess who my husband just received an "official" letter from? He's being invited to make good on the C/S he's failed to pay, the last 2-1/2 years...when he's had sole custody of his son and his HIS EX-WIFE has been the deadbeat, in several respects!!!

Supposedly this got cleared up last November, after the prosecutor contacted my husband, threatening to revoke his driver's license because he'd stopped paying into his ex's account at the C/S collections bureau. Supposedly it should've been cleared up in February, 2008, when my husband filed copies of the new custodial/child support orders with the C/S collections bureau, which can't be expected to communicate with the court on its own.

Do you suppose THIS time the prosecutor will be interested in extending amnesty and working out payment plans with the EX-WIFE, once my husband reminds him of the custodial situation? Probably not. Pursuing deadbeat MOMS doesn't make you look quite as heroic, in the papers.

[violet_]

Typical.

[aricha]

So ridiculous.

I absolutely understand why the system is in place and thank goodness for it's existence for those who rely on it to get what they need. But sometimes it is hard to believe how broken the system is when it starts applying the wrong laws to the wrong people and punishing people who are doing everything right...

It's absolutely unconscionable to have a system that can have such an awful negative effect on an innocent person's life have so many flaws.

Can you imagine if we had as many glitches in the system that registered sex offenders-- if it kept generating arrest warrants for innocent people, registered them as sex offenders, and then told them there was nothing they could do about the mistake but to just serve their time?

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by Jeannine

Do you suppose THIS time the prosecutor will be interested in extending amnesty and working out payment plans with the EX-WIFE, once my husband reminds him of the custodial situation? Probably not. Pursuing deadbeat MOMS doesn't make you look quite as heroic, in the papers.

Maybe because they don't exist in large numbers - compared to the deadbeat DADS who are rather proliferate?

While I can appreciate how upsetting this may be - I'm sure you realize this is because the percentage of non-custodial mothers who are supposed to be paying child support, and are negligent - is almost non-existent?

Again, I live in a large urban center, in a hospital, and have many, many dealings with legal proceedings, families, children, etc. I have yet to see even one case where the mother was/is behind on support payments and the father has more than visitation or 50/50.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, as your case clearly proves it does, but I think the authorities focus on the crux of the issue, as opposed to the minor satellite problems on the other side

[aricha]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

Maybe because they don't exist in large numbers - compared to the deadbeat DADS who are rather proliferate?

While I can appreciate how upsetting this may be - I'm sure you realize this is because the percentage of non-custodial mothers who are supposed to be paying child support, and are negligent - is almost non-existent?

The statistics say otherwise:

"The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay... Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support... give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures."

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by aricha

The statistics say otherwise:

"The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay... Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support... give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures."

The sheer volume of deadbeat dads outweighs the statistic.

So if 90% of moms required to pay child support are deadbeats - and that's 1000 people, and only 50% of dads required to pay child support are deadbeats - and that's 100,000 people... you get the idea. It's a non-starter.

There are simply more non-custodial, non-support paying fathers.

"Nearly 11 million fathers in the United States do not live with their children. Two-thirds of these fathers do not pay formal child support." (From the Urban Institute)

[pomplemoose]

I can totally see the OP's side of this. It really shouldnt matter whether you're the mom or dad you should be equally expected to pay up. DH's ex did get her license suspended, and leans put on any credit she has, but she hasn't paid a cent ever. The fact is not paying for the kids you have is unacceptable no matter who you are. The court favors moms over dads and hopefully, over time, that will change too. Until then OP I hope this mistake is one that is quickly cleaned up.

[FireFrog]

Originally Posted by pomplemoose

I can totally see the OP's side of this. It really shouldnt matter whether you're the mom or dad you should be equally expected to pay up. DH's ex did get her license suspended, and leans put on any credit she has, but she hasn't paid a cent ever. The fact is not paying for the kids you have is unacceptable no matter who you are. The court favors moms over dads and hopefully, over time, that will change too. Until then OP I hope this mistake is one that is quickly cleaned up.

Bolding mine.

It's about the children, plain and simple.

[singin'intherain]

This is more of a paperwork fiasco than really a deadbeat mom/dad issue. To them, it's papers. To you, it's your life.

[aricha]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

I'm sure you realize this is because the percentage of non-custodial mothers who are supposed to be paying child support, and are negligent - is almost non-existent?

This is what I am disputing... the assumption that the percentage of non-custodial moms who fail to pay court ordered support "is almost non-existent."

Dads are not less likely than moms to pay court-ordered child support. It doesn't make sense to have a system that targets dads or to assume they are the problem, when moms are in fact less likely to pay court-ordered support.

I'm not going to dispute that more moms currently get custody and that men currently earn more than women, both of which are big social issues that feed into the volume of men who are ordered to pay child support. There are cases here on MDC in which custodial dads are paying CS to non-custodial moms just because of the discrepancy in their income. But those things are different conversations.

[Jessnet]

just chiming in, we've got a deadbeat mom, too- so here are 2 examples in this MDC forum alone. No payments, plus mom hasn't even seen the kid in 8 years. TWICE we have filed with the state to collect past due amounts along with current info about her home, job, etc....nada. No payments and she is still driving and not in jail!

Although the law may be neutral, there is a most certainly a skew towards moms that is a result of human perception. One caseworker actually told my husband he made enough money that he shouldn't be bothing with CS, because the "poor" single bio-mom had other kids to support (by different dads). And this was whilr we were in the process of filing for (and were approved for) low-income emergercy medical support because of the child in question's special needs.

It does happens, and much more often than people think.

[VocalMinority]

The issue raised re deadbeat non-custodial moms being "almost nonexistent" is very interesting. I don't know actual statistics on that - maybe you're right. Two comments:

1- I'd be willing to bet the percentage of custodial fathers who ask not to receive C/S if they get custody is significant - and significantly higher than the percentage of custodial mothers who request the same. Sometimes a custodial father may outearn his ex to an extent that makes this perfectly reasonable. But it is quite common for fathers seeking custody to be pressured to request this even though they could benefit from support just as much as the mother could, if she had custody. The fear is that a father with a legitimate argument for receiving custody might lose simply due to the sexist presumption that his main interest in "taking the kids away from their mother" is to reverse the flow of support. This is common and I challenge you to find a book offering advice to fathers who want custody which does not suggest forgoing support.

Although I know there are custodial mothers who don't wind up with orders for support, I can't imagine it's ever for the same reason. When a mother wants custody of her children it's (quite appropriately!) presumed to be natural and for reasons loftier than the money - and there's not the same sense that giving her custody is a sacrifice, that she's "taking them away from" her ex.

So IF I am correct, then it's possible that some (even many) mothers who lose custody of their children and would be irresponsible IF they had to pay support are sheltered from ever being labeled as a deadbeat, because they're never ordered to pay support in the first place...and not being ordered to pay support is less common for noncustodial fathers.

2- In keeping with what I said above, my husband's ex is not a "deadbeat" in the traditional way. To be clear, my frustrated comments about whether the prosecutor will pursue her were simply theoretical. Although their orders do spell out a specific dollar amount she's expected to contribute toward their son's well-being, she is specifically instructed to pay it with the cost of her travel here to visit him and is not required to make payments to my husband. So although the orders also spell out an approximate cost per visit - and she does not come here often enough for the cost of her visits to amount to even half what she's supposed to spend on "support-via-visits" ...clearly, this is not an issue with which the prosecutor would concern himself, since there are not unmade payments.

She was also ordered to maintain health insurance for my step-son, to pay half the cost of his counseling and other medical costs not covered by insurance, to reimburse my husband for half the cost of the expensive custody evaluation and to pay all the costs of my step-son's travel to visit her. She does not do these things - and refuses to discuss them - and she dumped my step-son's coverage on her health insurance policy. I consider these things deadbeat behavior, too, but they're not things the prosecutor would pursue, either. My husband has to pay to go back to court, if he hopes to resolve any of them. And even then, if he wins, there's still not a method of enforcement. Again, she's already been ordered to pay all these things.

Not that I want her jailed, or her license revoked, or anything else that would increase her resentment and interfere with her ability to visit or earn a living! It's just that if she's NOT going to spend what she ought to pay in support on visits, health insurance, etc. we could put that money to good use, whereas instead it appears to be spent trying to convince my step-son that his mom is wealthy and can buy him all the latest electronics and spend every weekend at amusement parks, spas and expensive restaurants... if he will JUST tell anyone who will listen that he wants to go back and live with her...

[pinksprklybarefoot]

TBH, I don't understand why gender has to play into it - why couldn't the prosecutor have just extended amnesty to deadbeat parents?

Sorry you are dealing with this, Jeannine.

[Ceinwen]

Originally Posted by aricha

[LIST][*]This is what I am disputing... the assumption that the percentage of non-custodial moms who fail to pay court ordered support "is almost non-existent."

I'm not disputing the percentage. I apologize if that's what came across in my post.

What I am trying to articulate is that the NUMBER of 'deadbeat' parents - are much higher in the male denomination. So, even if the percentage of 'deadbeat' mothers IS higher than 'deadbeat' dads - there are MORE nonpaying men by sheer numbers alone.

I never once disputed that it mattered what the sex was, a parent ordered to pay CS should pay. Or go to court and change it.

I was merely answer the OP's complaint re: not going after 'deadbeat' moms because it wasn't heroic.

[violet_]

Originally Posted by Ceinwen

Maybe because they don't exist in large numbers - compared to the deadbeat DADS who are rather proliferate?

While I can appreciate how upsetting this may be - I'm sure you realize this is because the percentage of non-custodial mothers who are supposed to be paying child support, and are negligent - is almost non-existent?

Again, I live in a large urban center, in a hospital, and have many, many dealings with legal proceedings, families, children, etc. I have yet to see even one case where the mother was/is behind on support payments and the father has more than visitation or 50/50.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist, as your case clearly proves it does, but I think the authorities focus on the crux of the issue, as opposed to the minor satellite problems on the other side

I guess I don't follow the logic here. So, does this mean we should only pursue criminals who fit the statistical profile of those who cause more trouble? (race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, etc.?) I think/hope that type of profiling is usually discouraged.

Yes, more dads are required to pay CS, so more dads are delinquent in it, even though as a percentage they are more likely to pay when required than moms are. I'm not sure how this is relevant to Jeannine's family being treated unfairly (repeatedly!) in a clear mistake based almost assuredly on the fact that the CP in this case is male. I don't favor sexism in either direction, (and I doubt you do either).

In my opinion, if a prosecutor is going after those who haven't paid required child support, the sex of the offender should be irrelevant in both the practice of tracking them down and in the rhetoric. It sounds like neither of these was the case in this instance.