If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...lroy080404.htm August 4, 2004 by Wendy McElroy A July 25 Justice Department study reveals that 6.9 million people -- one in 34 adults -- were on probation, parole or incarcerated in 2003. This record-breaking figure has prompted calls for the removal of nonviolent offenders from the system. If that happens, the first offenders to be removed should be "deadbeat dads" imprisoned for defaulting on child support they cannot afford to pay. An obstacle confronts this proposal. An amazing lack of data surrounds some basic questions: How many "deadbeat dads" are in the correctional system? Do they refuse to pay or are they unable to do so?" The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment of child support is a significant problem in the United States. According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain unanswered. The "deadbeat dad" became a priority issue on a federal level in 1975, when President Gerald Ford created the national Office of Child Support Enforcement, the function of which had previously been the purview of states. In short, for almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government officials have spent billions of dollars to track down "deadbeat dads." Yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been jailed is difficult to find. The DOJ states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated "in Federal or State prisons or in local jails" as of June 30, 2003. The crimes for which people were incarcerated are sorted into four categories: Violent, Property, Drug, Public-order. There is no category for "deadbeat dads." Indeed, the local family courts that sentence fathers for non-payment generally do so on "contempt of court" charges; that is, the fathers are in contempt of a court-ordered payment. This makes their cases difficult to sort out from other contempt charges. To my knowledge, there is no national data on the number of "deadbeat dads" incarcerated on "contempt" for non-payment. (The group, Hunger Strike for Justice, estimates the number at 250,000, but their figure may well be inflated.) Instead of hard data, anecdotal reports abound -- often in the form of local news items about sentencing within a community. The numbers are important. Prison populations are growing rapidly even as crime rates continue to sharply decline. According to the DOJ, the number of people incarcerated rose by 130,700 or by "2.9% from midyear 2002." It is important to identify categories of nonviolent prisoners whose release pose no threat to society. Fathers who have been imprisoned because of an inability to pay are perfect candidates for release. Indeed, their continued incarceration comes close to establishing a de facto debtors' prison -- an institution supposedly abolished more than 200 years ago by President Adams. But are the incarcerated fathers unable to pay? An easy "yes" or "no" answer does not exist. Nor do reliable statistics. Again, anecdotal information fills the vacuum. Some imprisoned fathers may be able to pay but refuse to do so because of grievances. For example, they may be withholding support until their court-ordered visitation rights are respected. The story told by an imprisoned "deadbeat dad" who identifies himself as "HeartBroken Father" is probably more common. After two heart attacks, he became homeless. Nevertheless, he writes, "I was still labeled a 'deadbeat dad' by New York State, which suspended my driver's license, and my professional license to practice as a Respiratory Technologist in New York." (Revocation of professional licenses is standard procedure against "deadbeat dads.") By the time HeartBroken Father had landed a minimum-wage job, he owed $30,000 in back child support. Despite a perfect record of paying when employed, he was sentenced to five months of consecutive weekends in jail, at which point he lost his job. After describing the dangerous, humiliating and terrifying experience of being imprisoned even as a "weekender," HeartBroken Father comments, "some judges use imprisonment ... as a 'tool,' to pry loose hidden funds from deadbeat dads, their friends or relatives. I think this tactic is probably very effective, because no one that could pay and get out would subject themselves willingly to prison." In short, any "deadbeat dad" who endures prison is probably unable to pay his way out. This scenario becomes more likely when you consider that employed "deadbeat dads" have child support withheld from their wages; employers are required to do so by law. Therefore, those imprisoned are probably unemployed or have earnings that cannot cover their payments. Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their child support debt rises. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by imprisoning such nonviolent fathers. It is easier to understand what releasing them accomplishes. Quite apart from humanitarian concerns, the correctional system -- especially the prison system -- cannot sustain its current growth rate. The DOJ estimates that in 2001, "2.7% of adults in the U.S. had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974." Now the estimate is 3.2 percent. Even if society could accommodate the soaring rate of imprisonment, the prisons themselves cannot. In some areas of the United States, incarcerated deadbeat dads are already being released. For example, prison authorities in Macomb County, Mich., recently released "60 drug offenders, deadbeat dads and other low-level offenders" due to overcrowding. It is time for the release of impoverished deadbeat dads to become official policy in every corner of North America. Wendy McElroy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
Don wrote:
In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads=20 http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...lroy080404.htm August 4, 2004 by Wendy McElroy My comments will be interlaced........ A July 25 Justice Department study reveals that 6.9 million people -- = one in 34 adults -- were on probation, parole or incarcerated in 2003. = This record-breaking figure has prompted calls for the removal of = nonviolent offenders from the system.=20 If that happens, the first offenders to be removed should be "deadbeat = dads" imprisoned for defaulting on child support they cannot afford to = pay. **Deadbroke** dads, I'd agree with. The ones that REALLY can't pay. An obstacle confronts this proposal. An amazing lack of data surrounds = some basic questions: How many "deadbeat dads" are in the correctional = system? Do they refuse to pay or are they unable to do so?" That's the big question. And what constitutes not being able to pay? Is quiting your job because you don't want to stay in a particular field any longer and you take a lower paying job really a valid reason? If after paying all of ones personal bills and expenses there isn't enough left to pay the CS is that a valid reason? Is taking on additional children or expenses a valid reason to no longer pay CS? How about those that get fired from a high paying job and take a minimum wage job and then have no proof they even attempted to find something that would be close to what they were making? See to me therein lies the big problem. Sure there are people out there that can't earn what they need to to be able to pay their CS and live a reasonable life. BUT it's the skunks that try and play the system that make the truely in need of the most minimum awards or abatements up for very tough scrutiny. I have sat in court rooms and watched some guys feel their boat payments, or vacations, or building a new home shouldn't be considered when it comes to being able to pay CS. I have watched a guy use a cane to get to the bench to present a Dr.'s letter that he couldn't work any longer to the judge and then I saw him in the parking lot walking just fine as he became a contortionist to fit into his sports car. I too have watched NCPs stand in front of a judge and swear they really have been trying to get a job but present not one name or number for anywhere they applied or anyone they interviewed with, even after they were told to keep a log of these things.. The other thing that doesn't bode well for those that REALLY can't pay, is when a judge tells a NCP to payup or go to jail a good portion of them some how find the money. No wonder it's hard to get a reduction. The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a = high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment = of child support is a significant problem in the United States. = According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion = in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; = 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming = majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent = homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many = questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain = unanswered. This baffles me too. 68% is an awfully high number. I wonder just how accurate that figure is. The "deadbeat dad" became a priority issue on a federal level in 1975, = when President Gerald Ford created the national Office of Child Support = Enforcement, the function of which had previously been the purview of = states. In short, for almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government = officials have spent billions of dollars to track down "deadbeat dads." = Yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been = jailed is difficult to find. I'd love to know just how many NCPs ever actually go to jail. I think the number is much lower than some would want others to believe. The DOJ states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated "in Federal or = State prisons or in local jails" as of June 30, 2003. The crimes for = which people were incarcerated are sorted into four categories: Violent, = Property, Drug, Public-order. There is no category for "deadbeat dads." = Indeed, the local family courts that sentence fathers for non-payment = generally do so on "contempt of court" charges; that is, the fathers are = in contempt of a court-ordered payment. This makes their cases difficult = to sort out from other contempt charges. To my knowledge, there is no national data on the number of "deadbeat = dads" incarcerated on "contempt" for non-payment. (The group, Hunger = Strike for Justice, estimates the number at 250,000, but their figure = may well be inflated.) Instead of hard data, anecdotal reports abound -- often in the form of = local news items about sentencing within a community. The numbers are important. Prison populations are growing rapidly even = as crime rates continue to sharply decline. According to the DOJ, the = number of people incarcerated rose by 130,700 or by "2.9% from midyear = 2002." It is important to identify categories of nonviolent prisoners = whose release pose no threat to society. I beleive that anyone that ***refuses*** to support their child IS posing a threat to society. Fathers who have been imprisoned because of an inability to pay are = perfect candidates for release. I agree providing their inability is not do to anything they have done or do to create the inability. Indeed, their continued incarceration = comes close to establishing a de facto debtors' prison -- an institution = supposedly abolished more than 200 years ago by President Adams. Debtors prisons were abolished to prevent creditors from forcing incarseration for nonpayment for goods and/or services. That isn't the same as supporting your child. But are the incarcerated fathers unable to pay? An easy "yes" or "no" = answer does not exist. Nor do reliable statistics. Again, anecdotal = information fills the vacuum. Exactly. One NCP I know says he shouldn't have to pay CS because he now has two toddlers and he and his 2nd wife don't want to put them in daycare. So his answer was to quit his job and say he can't pay. He can pay, he just chose not to. BTW he is now paying and feels *so mistreated by the system*. He feels he falls into the *can't pay* and deadbroke catagory, but of course he doesn't. Some imprisoned fathers may be able to pay but refuse to do so because = of grievances. For example, they may be withholding support until their = court-ordered visitation rights are respected. Or they hate their ex more than they care about their kids, or they feel the amount they have to pay is unfair, or they move on not just from their exes but also from the children they had with them. The story told by an imprisoned "deadbeat dad" who identifies himself as = "HeartBroken Father" is probably more common. After two heart attacks, = he became homeless. Nevertheless, he writes, "I was still labeled a = 'deadbeat dad' by New York State, which suspended my driver's license, = and my professional license to practice as a Respiratory Technologist in = New York." (Revocation of professional licenses is standard procedure = against "deadbeat dads.") By the time HeartBroken Father had landed a minimum-wage job, he owed = $30,000 in back child support. Despite a perfect record of paying when = employed, he was sentenced to five months of consecutive weekends in = jail, at which point he lost his job. After describing the dangerous, humiliating and terrifying experience of = being imprisoned even as a "weekender," HeartBroken Father comments, = "some judges use imprisonment ... as a 'tool,' to pry loose hidden funds = from deadbeat dads, their friends or relatives. I think this tactic is = probably very effective, because no one that could pay and get out would = subject themselves willingly to prison." I agree with this guy and find it digusting that the skunks out there are the REAL cause of guys like this going to jail. In short, any "deadbeat dad" who endures prison is probably unable to = pay his way out. This scenario becomes more likely when you consider = that employed "deadbeat dads" have child support withheld from their = wages; employers are required to do so by law. LOL, not anywhere near all. Therefore, those = imprisoned are probably unemployed or have earnings that cannot cover = their payments. OR and that's a BIG OR they are self employed, working for cash, have mutiple SS#'s, present inflated living expenses, or quit their jobs and move on to another when the witholding order comes up, or work for an employer that doesn't have to withold CS because they are a small bussiness. Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their = child support debt rises. And for those that are TRUELY deadbroke, this is unaccetable. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by imprisoning such = nonviolent fathers. It is easier to understand what releasing them = accomplishes. Quite apart from humanitarian concerns, the correctional = system -- especially the prison system -- cannot sustain its current = growth rate. The DOJ estimates that in 2001, "2.7% of adults in the U.S. = had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974." Now = the estimate is 3.2 percent. Even if society could accommodate the = soaring rate of imprisonment, the prisons themselves cannot. I agree. I don't think prison is the best route even for *most* that are avoiding CS and can pay it. I'd much rather see all their assets frozen and their bank accounts attached. If they deal in cash then maybe prision is the right place for them as they aren't paying taxes either. In some areas of the United States, incarcerated deadbeat dads are = already being released. For example, prison authorities in Macomb = County, Mich., recently released "60 drug offenders, deadbeat dads and = other low-level offenders" due to overcrowding. It is time for the = release of impoverished deadbeat dads to become official policy in every = corner of North America. Deadbroke to be released? You bet ya. Deadbeat? That's depends. Mrs Indyguy Wendy McElroy=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C47AD0.6B1C75B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD DIVIn Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads = A=20href=3D"http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2004/mcelro y0804=04.ht |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a = high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment = of child support is a significant problem in the United States. = According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion = in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; = 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming = majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent = homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many = questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain = unanswered. This baffles me too. 68% is an awfully high number. I wonder just how accurate that figure is. The Federal Office of Child Support has a reputation for playing it fast and loose with the statistics. The Census reports 63% of the CS ordered amount was paid during 2002. The reciprocal of that number shows 37% of all CS ordered was not paid. By counting cases instead of money collected, the Federal OCSE inflates the CS collection issue and ignores the fact the high-end orders are voluntarily paid (not collected) without any effort by the government. If 68% of all Cs orders are in arrears that indicates the government is a complete failure in collecting the low-end orders. The other figure in the above paragraph that is questionable is the $96 billion in accumulated unpaid support. The total cumulative support owed is $34.9 billion per year as of 2002. How can it be possible the arrearage amount of CS is 3 times the annual amount due? Most analysts believe the Federal OCSE counts all the CS they could collect, if a formal orders existed, as being an "uncollected" amount. Of course, the reason the CS is "uncollected" is because the money is not going through the IV-D collection process. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those
contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Don wrote: In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads=20 http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...lroy080404.htm August 4, 2004 by Wendy McElroy My comments will be interlaced........ A July 25 Justice Department study reveals that 6.9 million people -- = one in 34 adults -- were on probation, parole or incarcerated in 2003. = This record-breaking figure has prompted calls for the removal of = nonviolent offenders from the system.=20 If that happens, the first offenders to be removed should be "deadbeat = dads" imprisoned for defaulting on child support they cannot afford to = pay. **Deadbroke** dads, I'd agree with. The ones that REALLY can't pay. An obstacle confronts this proposal. An amazing lack of data surrounds = some basic questions: How many "deadbeat dads" are in the correctional = system? Do they refuse to pay or are they unable to do so?" That's the big question. And what constitutes not being able to pay? Is quiting your job because you don't want to stay in a particular field any longer and you take a lower paying job really a valid reason? If after paying all of ones personal bills and expenses there isn't enough left to pay the CS is that a valid reason? Is taking on additional children or expenses a valid reason to no longer pay CS? How about those that get fired from a high paying job and take a minimum wage job and then have no proof they even attempted to find something that would be close to what they were making? See to me therein lies the big problem. Sure there are people out there that can't earn what they need to to be able to pay their CS and live a reasonable life. BUT it's the skunks that try and play the system that make the truely in need of the most minimum awards or abatements up for very tough scrutiny. I have sat in court rooms and watched some guys feel their boat payments, or vacations, or building a new home shouldn't be considered when it comes to being able to pay CS. I have watched a guy use a cane to get to the bench to present a Dr.'s letter that he couldn't work any longer to the judge and then I saw him in the parking lot walking just fine as he became a contortionist to fit into his sports car. I too have watched NCPs stand in front of a judge and swear they really have been trying to get a job but present not one name or number for anywhere they applied or anyone they interviewed with, even after they were told to keep a log of these things.. The other thing that doesn't bode well for those that REALLY can't pay, is when a judge tells a NCP to payup or go to jail a good portion of them some how find the money. No wonder it's hard to get a reduction. The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a = high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment = of child support is a significant problem in the United States. = According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion = in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; = 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming = majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent = homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many = questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain = unanswered. This baffles me too. 68% is an awfully high number. I wonder just how accurate that figure is. The "deadbeat dad" became a priority issue on a federal level in 1975, = when President Gerald Ford created the national Office of Child Support = Enforcement, the function of which had previously been the purview of = states. In short, for almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government = officials have spent billions of dollars to track down "deadbeat dads." = Yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been = jailed is difficult to find. I'd love to know just how many NCPs ever actually go to jail. I think the number is much lower than some would want others to believe. The DOJ states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated "in Federal or = State prisons or in local jails" as of June 30, 2003. The crimes for = which people were incarcerated are sorted into four categories: Violent, = Property, Drug, Public-order. There is no category for "deadbeat dads." = Indeed, the local family courts that sentence fathers for non-payment = generally do so on "contempt of court" charges; that is, the fathers are = in contempt of a court-ordered payment. This makes their cases difficult = to sort out from other contempt charges. To my knowledge, there is no national data on the number of "deadbeat = dads" incarcerated on "contempt" for non-payment. (The group, Hunger = Strike for Justice, estimates the number at 250,000, but their figure = may well be inflated.) Instead of hard data, anecdotal reports abound -- often in the form of = local news items about sentencing within a community. The numbers are important. Prison populations are growing rapidly even = as crime rates continue to sharply decline. According to the DOJ, the = number of people incarcerated rose by 130,700 or by "2.9% from midyear = 2002." It is important to identify categories of nonviolent prisoners = whose release pose no threat to society. I beleive that anyone that ***refuses*** to support their child IS posing a threat to society. Fathers who have been imprisoned because of an inability to pay are = perfect candidates for release. I agree providing their inability is not do to anything they have done or do to create the inability. Indeed, their continued incarceration = comes close to establishing a de facto debtors' prison -- an institution = supposedly abolished more than 200 years ago by President Adams. Debtors prisons were abolished to prevent creditors from forcing incarseration for nonpayment for goods and/or services. That isn't the same as supporting your child. But are the incarcerated fathers unable to pay? An easy "yes" or "no" = answer does not exist. Nor do reliable statistics. Again, anecdotal = information fills the vacuum. Exactly. One NCP I know says he shouldn't have to pay CS because he now has two toddlers and he and his 2nd wife don't want to put them in daycare. So his answer was to quit his job and say he can't pay. He can pay, he just chose not to. BTW he is now paying and feels *so mistreated by the system*. He feels he falls into the *can't pay* and deadbroke catagory, but of course he doesn't. Some imprisoned fathers may be able to pay but refuse to do so because = of grievances. For example, they may be withholding support until their = court-ordered visitation rights are respected. Or they hate their ex more than they care about their kids, or they feel the amount they have to pay is unfair, or they move on not just from their exes but also from the children they had with them. The story told by an imprisoned "deadbeat dad" who identifies himself as = "HeartBroken Father" is probably more common. After two heart attacks, = he became homeless. Nevertheless, he writes, "I was still labeled a = 'deadbeat dad' by New York State, which suspended my driver's license, = and my professional license to practice as a Respiratory Technologist in = New York." (Revocation of professional licenses is standard procedure = against "deadbeat dads.") By the time HeartBroken Father had landed a minimum-wage job, he owed = $30,000 in back child support. Despite a perfect record of paying when = employed, he was sentenced to five months of consecutive weekends in = jail, at which point he lost his job. After describing the dangerous, humiliating and terrifying experience of = being imprisoned even as a "weekender," HeartBroken Father comments, = "some judges use imprisonment ... as a 'tool,' to pry loose hidden funds = from deadbeat dads, their friends or relatives. I think this tactic is = probably very effective, because no one that could pay and get out would = subject themselves willingly to prison." I agree with this guy and find it digusting that the skunks out there are the REAL cause of guys like this going to jail. In short, any "deadbeat dad" who endures prison is probably unable to = pay his way out. This scenario becomes more likely when you consider = that employed "deadbeat dads" have child support withheld from their = wages; employers are required to do so by law. LOL, not anywhere near all. Therefore, those = imprisoned are probably unemployed or have earnings that cannot cover = their payments. OR and that's a BIG OR they are self employed, working for cash, have mutiple SS#'s, present inflated living expenses, or quit their jobs and move on to another when the witholding order comes up, or work for an employer that doesn't have to withold CS because they are a small bussiness. Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their = child support debt rises. And for those that are TRUELY deadbroke, this is unaccetable. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by imprisoning such = nonviolent fathers. It is easier to understand what releasing them = accomplishes. Quite apart from humanitarian concerns, the correctional = system -- especially the prison system -- cannot sustain its current = growth rate. The DOJ estimates that in 2001, "2.7% of adults in the U.S. = had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974." Now = the estimate is 3.2 percent. Even if society could accommodate the = soaring rate of imprisonment, the prisons themselves cannot. I agree. I don't think prison is the best route even for *most* that are avoiding CS and can pay it. I'd much rather see all their assets frozen and their bank accounts attached. If they deal in cash then maybe prision is the right place for them as they aren't paying taxes either. In some areas of the United States, incarcerated deadbeat dads are = already being released. For example, prison authorities in Macomb = County, Mich., recently released "60 drug offenders, deadbeat dads and = other low-level offenders" due to overcrowding. It is time for the = release of impoverished deadbeat dads to become official policy in every = corner of North America. Deadbroke to be released? You bet ya. Deadbeat? That's depends. Mrs Indyguy Wendy McElroy=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C47AD0.6B1C75B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD DIVIn Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads = A=20href=3D"http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mcelroy/2004/mcelro y0804=04.ht |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
Mel wrote:
Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. sarcasim on Yeah right, Mel. They do nothing other than cash that extorsion check, and let's not forget eat bon bons while watching Oprah. Yep, the kids living with their CPs have extended bellies from maluntrition, walk around in rags with heads infested with lice. They rarely go to school cause CPs are too lazy to get out of bed, and the ones that do attend fail due to lack of academic supervision. Then you have all those female children of CPs that are preggers before they graduate 8th grade and the male offspring that either join gangs or a drug addicts before they hit Jr. High. These CPs walk around in diamonds and furs or spend all those HUGE CS bucks on dope, cigs, booze and gambeling. Yep you're right Mel, the kids rasie themselves and support their CPs with the CS. Of course the *perfect NCP* couldn't ever win custody in a situation like this because as we are told on this very ng, NCPs are just about all men and men never ever get a fair deal in family courts. sarcasim off Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Don wrote: In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads=20 http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...lroy080404.htm August 4, 2004 by Wendy McElroy My comments will be interlaced........ A July 25 Justice Department study reveals that 6.9 million people -- = one in 34 adults -- were on probation, parole or incarcerated in 2003. = This record-breaking figure has prompted calls for the removal of = nonviolent offenders from the system.=20 If that happens, the first offenders to be removed should be "deadbeat = dads" imprisoned for defaulting on child support they cannot afford to = pay. **Deadbroke** dads, I'd agree with. The ones that REALLY can't pay. An obstacle confronts this proposal. An amazing lack of data surrounds = some basic questions: How many "deadbeat dads" are in the correctional = system? Do they refuse to pay or are they unable to do so?" That's the big question. And what constitutes not being able to pay? Is quiting your job because you don't want to stay in a particular field any longer and you take a lower paying job really a valid reason? If after paying all of ones personal bills and expenses there isn't enough left to pay the CS is that a valid reason? Is taking on additional children or expenses a valid reason to no longer pay CS? How about those that get fired from a high paying job and take a minimum wage job and then have no proof they even attempted to find something that would be close to what they were making? See to me therein lies the big problem. Sure there are people out there that can't earn what they need to to be able to pay their CS and live a reasonable life. BUT it's the skunks that try and play the system that make the truely in need of the most minimum awards or abatements up for very tough scrutiny. I have sat in court rooms and watched some guys feel their boat payments, or vacations, or building a new home shouldn't be considered when it comes to being able to pay CS. I have watched a guy use a cane to get to the bench to present a Dr.'s letter that he couldn't work any longer to the judge and then I saw him in the parking lot walking just fine as he became a contortionist to fit into his sports car. I too have watched NCPs stand in front of a judge and swear they really have been trying to get a job but present not one name or number for anywhere they applied or anyone they interviewed with, even after they were told to keep a log of these things.. The other thing that doesn't bode well for those that REALLY can't pay, is when a judge tells a NCP to payup or go to jail a good portion of them some how find the money. No wonder it's hard to get a reduction. The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a = high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment = of child support is a significant problem in the United States. = According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion = in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; = 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming = majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent = homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many = questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain = unanswered. This baffles me too. 68% is an awfully high number. I wonder just how accurate that figure is. The "deadbeat dad" became a priority issue on a federal level in 1975, = when President Gerald Ford created the national Office of Child Support = Enforcement, the function of which had previously been the purview of = states. In short, for almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government = officials have spent billions of dollars to track down "deadbeat dads." = Yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been = jailed is difficult to find. I'd love to know just how many NCPs ever actually go to jail. I think the number is much lower than some would want others to believe. The DOJ states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated "in Federal or = State prisons or in local jails" as of June 30, 2003. The crimes for = which people were incarcerated are sorted into four categories: Violent, = Property, Drug, Public-order. There is no category for "deadbeat dads." = Indeed, the local family courts that sentence fathers for non-payment = generally do so on "contempt of court" charges; that is, the fathers are = in contempt of a court-ordered payment. This makes their cases difficult = to sort out from other contempt charges. To my knowledge, there is no national data on the number of "deadbeat = dads" incarcerated on "contempt" for non-payment. (The group, Hunger = Strike for Justice, estimates the number at 250,000, but their figure = may well be inflated.) Instead of hard data, anecdotal reports abound -- often in the form of = local news items about sentencing within a community. The numbers are important. Prison populations are growing rapidly even = as crime rates continue to sharply decline. According to the DOJ, the = number of people incarcerated rose by 130,700 or by "2.9% from midyear = 2002." It is important to identify categories of nonviolent prisoners = whose release pose no threat to society. I beleive that anyone that ***refuses*** to support their child IS posing a threat to society. Fathers who have been imprisoned because of an inability to pay are = perfect candidates for release. I agree providing their inability is not do to anything they have done or do to create the inability. Indeed, their continued incarceration = comes close to establishing a de facto debtors' prison -- an institution = supposedly abolished more than 200 years ago by President Adams. Debtors prisons were abolished to prevent creditors from forcing incarseration for nonpayment for goods and/or services. That isn't the same as supporting your child. But are the incarcerated fathers unable to pay? An easy "yes" or "no" = answer does not exist. Nor do reliable statistics. Again, anecdotal = information fills the vacuum. Exactly. One NCP I know says he shouldn't have to pay CS because he now has two toddlers and he and his 2nd wife don't want to put them in daycare. So his answer was to quit his job and say he can't pay. He can pay, he just chose not to. BTW he is now paying and feels *so mistreated by the system*. He feels he falls into the *can't pay* and deadbroke catagory, but of course he doesn't. Some imprisoned fathers may be able to pay but refuse to do so because = of grievances. For example, they may be withholding support until their = court-ordered visitation rights are respected. Or they hate their ex more than they care about their kids, or they feel the amount they have to pay is unfair, or they move on not just from their exes but also from the children they had with them. The story told by an imprisoned "deadbeat dad" who identifies himself as = "HeartBroken Father" is probably more common. After two heart attacks, = he became homeless. Nevertheless, he writes, "I was still labeled a = 'deadbeat dad' by New York State, which suspended my driver's license, = and my professional license to practice as a Respiratory Technologist in = New York." (Revocation of professional licenses is standard procedure = against "deadbeat dads.") By the time HeartBroken Father had landed a minimum-wage job, he owed = $30,000 in back child support. Despite a perfect record of paying when = employed, he was sentenced to five months of consecutive weekends in = jail, at which point he lost his job. After describing the dangerous, humiliating and terrifying experience of = being imprisoned even as a "weekender," HeartBroken Father comments, = "some judges use imprisonment ... as a 'tool,' to pry loose hidden funds = from deadbeat dads, their friends or relatives. I think this tactic is = probably very effective, because no one that could pay and get out would = subject themselves willingly to prison." I agree with this guy and find it digusting that the skunks out there are the REAL cause of guys like this going to jail. In short, any "deadbeat dad" who endures prison is probably unable to = pay his way out. This scenario becomes more likely when you consider = that employed "deadbeat dads" have child support withheld from their = wages; employers are required to do so by law. LOL, not anywhere near all. Therefore, those = imprisoned are probably unemployed or have earnings that cannot cover = their payments. OR and that's a BIG OR they are self employed, working for cash, have mutiple SS#'s, present inflated living expenses, or quit their jobs and move on to another when the witholding order comes up, or work for an employer that doesn't have to withold CS because they are a small bussiness. Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their = child support debt rises. And for those that are TRUELY deadbroke, this is unaccetable. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by imprisoning such = nonviolent fathers. It is easier to understand what releasing them = accomplishes. Quite apart from humanitarian concerns, the correctional = system -- especially the prison system -- cannot sustain its current = growth rate. The DOJ estimates that in 2001, "2.7% of adults in the U.S. = had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974." Now = the estimate is 3.2 percent. Even if society could accommodate the = soaring rate of imprisonment, the prisons themselves cannot. I agree. I don't think prison is the best route even for *most* that are avoiding CS and can pay it. I'd much rather see all their assets frozen and their bank accounts attached. If they deal in cash then maybe prision is the right place for them as they aren't paying taxes either. In some areas of the United States, incarcerated deadbeat dads are = already being released. For example, prison authorities in Macomb = County, Mich., recently released "60 drug offenders, deadbeat dads and = other low-level offenders" due to overcrowding. It is time for the = release of impoverished deadbeat dads to become official policy in every = corner of North America. Deadbroke to be released? You bet ya. Deadbeat? That's depends. Mrs Indyguy Wendy McElroy=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C47AD0.6B1C75B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Mel wrote: Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. sarcasim on Yeah right, Mel. They do nothing other than cash that extorsion check, and let's not forget eat bon bons while watching Oprah. I think the point is that CPs are not required to earn any money to support their kids--only NCPs are required to do so. As for the parenting aspect, sorry, Indy--they get no credit in my book for that because that is what parents are supposed to do--take care of their kids. And the majority of NCPs I have known would *love* to be doing all those things. The money is the issue. Why does the mother of my husband's daughter get to sit on her derelict duff, never asked to provide a penny, and still get to be the "victim" of all those big, bad men who made her pregnant with all those children? Why hasn't some judge somewhere told her to get off her lard butt or go to jail? Our credit is ruined, and she is just a poor wittle woman who deserves to be paid. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Mel wrote: Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. sarcasim on Yeah right, Mel. They do nothing other than cash that extorsion check, and let's not forget eat bon bons while watching Oprah. I think the point is that CPs are not required to earn any money to support their kids--only NCPs are required to do so. As for the parenting aspect, sorry, Indy--they get no credit in my book for that because that is what parents are supposed to do--take care of their kids. And the majority of NCPs I have known would *love* to be doing all those things. The money is the issue. Why does the mother of my husband's daughter get to sit on her derelict duff, never asked to provide a penny, and still get to be the "victim" of all those big, bad men who made her pregnant with all those children? Why hasn't some judge somewhere told her to get off her lard butt or go to jail? Our credit is ruined, and she is just a poor wittle woman who deserves to be paid. IN THEORY, the rules about imputed income are supposed to apply to mothers in states that I am familiar with. However, what happens in practice is a different matter. I write up court rulings (appeals court level and above, from all states) for a quarterly newsletter. I have seen rulings that involved oppressive application of the imputed income rule to fathers (e.g. one where the court that ruled that, because many schoolteachers get second jobs during the summer, it was OK to impute income to a schoolteacher father, on the basis that he could have a second job). However, I recall only one where the imputed income rule was applied to a mother. That was in a situation where the mother had remarried, had another child by her new husband, and wanted her CS to be increased to reflect the fact that she had become a stay-at-home mother. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
You spin like patty-poop used to spin....
Indyguy1 wrote: Mel wrote: Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. sarcasim on Yeah right, Mel. They do nothing other than cash that extorsion check, and let's not forget eat bon bons while watching Oprah. Didn't say that's all they did, now did I? I said it's all they HAVE TO DO. Try responding to what's written, not what you find easy to argue against... Yep, the kids living with their CPs have extended bellies from maluntrition, walk around in rags with heads infested with lice. They rarely go to school cause CPs are too lazy to get out of bed, and the ones that do attend fail due to lack of academic supervision. Then you have all those female children of CPs that are preggers before they graduate 8th grade and the male offspring that either join gangs or a drug addicts before they hit Jr. High. These CPs walk around in diamonds and furs or spend all those HUGE CS bucks on dope, cigs, booze and gambeling. Yep you're right Mel, the kids rasie themselves and support their CPs with the CS. Of course the *perfect NCP* couldn't ever win custody in a situation like this because as we are told on this very ng, NCPs are just about all men and men never ever get a fair deal in family courts. sarcasim off And when do you turn off the ignorance???? Mel Gamble Mrs Indyguy Mel Gamble Indyguy1 wrote: Don wrote: In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads=20 http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...lroy080404.htm August 4, 2004 by Wendy McElroy My comments will be interlaced........ A July 25 Justice Department study reveals that 6.9 million people -- = one in 34 adults -- were on probation, parole or incarcerated in 2003. = This record-breaking figure has prompted calls for the removal of = nonviolent offenders from the system.=20 If that happens, the first offenders to be removed should be "deadbeat = dads" imprisoned for defaulting on child support they cannot afford to = pay. **Deadbroke** dads, I'd agree with. The ones that REALLY can't pay. An obstacle confronts this proposal. An amazing lack of data surrounds = some basic questions: How many "deadbeat dads" are in the correctional = system? Do they refuse to pay or are they unable to do so?" That's the big question. And what constitutes not being able to pay? Is quiting your job because you don't want to stay in a particular field any longer and you take a lower paying job really a valid reason? If after paying all of ones personal bills and expenses there isn't enough left to pay the CS is that a valid reason? Is taking on additional children or expenses a valid reason to no longer pay CS? How about those that get fired from a high paying job and take a minimum wage job and then have no proof they even attempted to find something that would be close to what they were making? See to me therein lies the big problem. Sure there are people out there that can't earn what they need to to be able to pay their CS and live a reasonable life. BUT it's the skunks that try and play the system that make the truely in need of the most minimum awards or abatements up for very tough scrutiny. I have sat in court rooms and watched some guys feel their boat payments, or vacations, or building a new home shouldn't be considered when it comes to being able to pay CS. I have watched a guy use a cane to get to the bench to present a Dr.'s letter that he couldn't work any longer to the judge and then I saw him in the parking lot walking just fine as he became a contortionist to fit into his sports car. I too have watched NCPs stand in front of a judge and swear they really have been trying to get a job but present not one name or number for anywhere they applied or anyone they interviewed with, even after they were told to keep a log of these things.. The other thing that doesn't bode well for those that REALLY can't pay, is when a judge tells a NCP to payup or go to jail a good portion of them some how find the money. No wonder it's hard to get a reduction. The dearth of data is amazing because the "deadbeat dad" has been a = high-profile issue in politics and the media for many years. Non-payment = of child support is a significant problem in the United States. = According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion = in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; = 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming = majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent = homes where child support is not paid live in poverty. Yet, many = questions about these fathers and why they fail to pay remain = unanswered. This baffles me too. 68% is an awfully high number. I wonder just how accurate that figure is. The "deadbeat dad" became a priority issue on a federal level in 1975, = when President Gerald Ford created the national Office of Child Support = Enforcement, the function of which had previously been the purview of = states. In short, for almost 30 years, an army of civil servants and government = officials have spent billions of dollars to track down "deadbeat dads." = Yet even such basic and easily collected data as how many have been = jailed is difficult to find. I'd love to know just how many NCPs ever actually go to jail. I think the number is much lower than some would want others to believe. The DOJ states that 2,078,570 people were incarcerated "in Federal or = State prisons or in local jails" as of June 30, 2003. The crimes for = which people were incarcerated are sorted into four categories: Violent, = Property, Drug, Public-order. There is no category for "deadbeat dads." = Indeed, the local family courts that sentence fathers for non-payment = generally do so on "contempt of court" charges; that is, the fathers are = in contempt of a court-ordered payment. This makes their cases difficult = to sort out from other contempt charges. To my knowledge, there is no national data on the number of "deadbeat = dads" incarcerated on "contempt" for non-payment. (The group, Hunger = Strike for Justice, estimates the number at 250,000, but their figure = may well be inflated.) Instead of hard data, anecdotal reports abound -- often in the form of = local news items about sentencing within a community. The numbers are important. Prison populations are growing rapidly even = as crime rates continue to sharply decline. According to the DOJ, the = number of people incarcerated rose by 130,700 or by "2.9% from midyear = 2002." It is important to identify categories of nonviolent prisoners = whose release pose no threat to society. I beleive that anyone that ***refuses*** to support their child IS posing a threat to society. Fathers who have been imprisoned because of an inability to pay are = perfect candidates for release. I agree providing their inability is not do to anything they have done or do to create the inability. Indeed, their continued incarceration = comes close to establishing a de facto debtors' prison -- an institution = supposedly abolished more than 200 years ago by President Adams. Debtors prisons were abolished to prevent creditors from forcing incarseration for nonpayment for goods and/or services. That isn't the same as supporting your child. But are the incarcerated fathers unable to pay? An easy "yes" or "no" = answer does not exist. Nor do reliable statistics. Again, anecdotal = information fills the vacuum. Exactly. One NCP I know says he shouldn't have to pay CS because he now has two toddlers and he and his 2nd wife don't want to put them in daycare. So his answer was to quit his job and say he can't pay. He can pay, he just chose not to. BTW he is now paying and feels *so mistreated by the system*. He feels he falls into the *can't pay* and deadbroke catagory, but of course he doesn't. Some imprisoned fathers may be able to pay but refuse to do so because = of grievances. For example, they may be withholding support until their = court-ordered visitation rights are respected. Or they hate their ex more than they care about their kids, or they feel the amount they have to pay is unfair, or they move on not just from their exes but also from the children they had with them. The story told by an imprisoned "deadbeat dad" who identifies himself as = "HeartBroken Father" is probably more common. After two heart attacks, = he became homeless. Nevertheless, he writes, "I was still labeled a = 'deadbeat dad' by New York State, which suspended my driver's license, = and my professional license to practice as a Respiratory Technologist in = New York." (Revocation of professional licenses is standard procedure = against "deadbeat dads.") By the time HeartBroken Father had landed a minimum-wage job, he owed = $30,000 in back child support. Despite a perfect record of paying when = employed, he was sentenced to five months of consecutive weekends in = jail, at which point he lost his job. After describing the dangerous, humiliating and terrifying experience of = being imprisoned even as a "weekender," HeartBroken Father comments, = "some judges use imprisonment ... as a 'tool,' to pry loose hidden funds = from deadbeat dads, their friends or relatives. I think this tactic is = probably very effective, because no one that could pay and get out would = subject themselves willingly to prison." I agree with this guy and find it digusting that the skunks out there are the REAL cause of guys like this going to jail. In short, any "deadbeat dad" who endures prison is probably unable to = pay his way out. This scenario becomes more likely when you consider = that employed "deadbeat dads" have child support withheld from their = wages; employers are required to do so by law. LOL, not anywhere near all. Therefore, those = imprisoned are probably unemployed or have earnings that cannot cover = their payments. OR and that's a BIG OR they are self employed, working for cash, have mutiple SS#'s, present inflated living expenses, or quit their jobs and move on to another when the witholding order comes up, or work for an employer that doesn't have to withold CS because they are a small bussiness. Their employment prospects sink with each imprisonment, even as their = child support debt rises. And for those that are TRUELY deadbroke, this is unaccetable. It is difficult to understand what is accomplished by imprisoning such = nonviolent fathers. It is easier to understand what releasing them = accomplishes. Quite apart from humanitarian concerns, the correctional = system -- especially the prison system -- cannot sustain its current = growth rate. The DOJ estimates that in 2001, "2.7% of adults in the U.S. = had served time in prison, up from 1.8% in 1991 and 1.3% in 1974." Now = the estimate is 3.2 percent. Even if society could accommodate the = soaring rate of imprisonment, the prisons themselves cannot. I agree. I don't think prison is the best route even for *most* that are avoiding CS and can pay it. I'd much rather see all their assets frozen and their bank accounts attached. If they deal in cash then maybe prision is the right place for them as they aren't paying taxes either. In some areas of the United States, incarcerated deadbeat dads are = already being released. For example, prison authorities in Macomb = County, Mich., recently released "60 drug offenders, deadbeat dads and = other low-level offenders" due to overcrowding. It is time for the = release of impoverished deadbeat dads to become official policy in every = corner of North America. Deadbroke to be released? You bet ya. Deadbeat? That's depends. Mrs Indyguy Wendy McElroy=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C47AD0.6B1C75B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable !DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" HEAD META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1" META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3DGENERATOR STYLE/STYLE /HEAD |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads
But, Kenneth, imputed income in income shares states means little or
nothing to the father....OR the mother. What dad pays is affected only slightly by mommy's imputed income. In fact, in some cases, mommy's imputed income can RAISE the support squeezed from dad. Mel Gamble "Kenneth S." wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Mel wrote: Isn't it nice that CP mommies don't have to go through all those contortions when they don't want to earn to support their kids....: ) All they have to do is ......NOTHING....except, of course, go down and cash those checks the state squeezes out of daddy. sarcasim on Yeah right, Mel. They do nothing other than cash that extorsion check, and let's not forget eat bon bons while watching Oprah. I think the point is that CPs are not required to earn any money to support their kids--only NCPs are required to do so. As for the parenting aspect, sorry, Indy--they get no credit in my book for that because that is what parents are supposed to do--take care of their kids. And the majority of NCPs I have known would *love* to be doing all those things. The money is the issue. Why does the mother of my husband's daughter get to sit on her derelict duff, never asked to provide a penny, and still get to be the "victim" of all those big, bad men who made her pregnant with all those children? Why hasn't some judge somewhere told her to get off her lard butt or go to jail? Our credit is ruined, and she is just a poor wittle woman who deserves to be paid. IN THEORY, the rules about imputed income are supposed to apply to mothers in states that I am familiar with. However, what happens in practice is a different matter. I write up court rulings (appeals court level and above, from all states) for a quarterly newsletter. I have seen rulings that involved oppressive application of the imputed income rule to fathers (e.g. one where the court that ruled that, because many schoolteachers get second jobs during the summer, it was OK to impute income to a schoolteacher father, on the basis that he could have a second job). However, I recall only one where the imputed income rule was applied to a mother. That was in a situation where the mother had remarried, had another child by her new husband, and wanted her CS to be increased to reflect the fact that she had become a stay-at-home mother. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's Child Support Guidelines that Need Surgery, Not 'Deadbeat Dads' | Dusty | Child Support | 176 | June 9th 04 06:24 AM |
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 132 | November 30th 03 10:41 PM |