Talk:Deadbeat parent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "dead beat dad and dead beat mum" is also used in Australia. So we should spell mum properly. It type it "mum" because we must use real English not dumb people's (American) English. --PeterSymon (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started the article, but in my opinion, the name of the article is inherently biased. --user:BluePlanet547

If Linda Lovelace has to stay by that blow-job name, then this subject should also be known by what it is "most commonly know as". -- Fplay 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Therefore, two wrongs make a right? No! Linda Lovelace has nothing to do with the insult of "dead beat dad," which many fathers consider the equivalent of "nigger." Cia123454321 15:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is heading towards complete garbage. I'd like to see the authors of the "history of deadbeat dad" time-line thing start citing sources and justifying their inclusion. Additionally, the colloquial name is why I looked this article up; redirection to a non-gender-bias article may be appropriate, but reference and placeholder should be maintained. I am slapping a subst:Cleanup until it's cleaned up - someone authoritative like to step up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.128.150 (talk) 02:59, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Family Law Court Imputes Income

Absolutely true. This nasty term is used to tar the non-custodial parent. An estimated 500,000+ are in prison today for the crime of not having enough money to pay their child support. That is a debtor's prison. One of the ironies is that some of the worst non-paying non-custodial parents are mothers. A case-by-case analysis generally discovers that the NCP has lost his/her job, become ill, or otherwise limited in their abilty to earn money. Family Law Judges then "impute" their prior income to the NCP, who cannot pay, and an arrearage mounts until an enforcement action is taken. One of the most famous of these actions was last year in NJ, when Monmouth County jailed Wilbur Street. Street had developed ALS and was confined to a wheelchair. On the second day of his incarceration for a child support arrearage, Street died of ALS.

For more -- The Deadbeat Dad Myth: Strategies and Research in Defense of Men in Divorce. Bender, W.N., and Beneder, R.L. University of Georgia Press, 1990.

[edit] Who is the obligee to child support?

"But, like any other past-due debt, the obligee, typically a mother, may forgive what is owed to her."

It has always been my understanding that child support was owed to the child rather than the parent. I don't have a citation for this, but does anyone have anything that backs up the claim that the obligee is the child's guardian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.163.177 (talk • contribs)

In Australia, the debt is payable to the resident parent. Their name appears on Child Support Agency account statements, example, CHILD SUPPORT TO ((name of parent)). I'd scan one for you but the forms contain a lot of personal details and it'd be almost blank by the time I published it online. -- Longhair 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased. I does not explore reasoning as to why parents do and dont pay. Also the exploration of issues related to bias within child support agencies.

[edit] DeadBeat Parents

This section is biased. I agree that "deadbeat dads" or "moms" for that matter is an inflammatory term, but I disagree that most parents don't pay because they can't afford it. It may be the case in some areas (states) but many places (and there are places outside the US) have systems where child support is calculated based on the non-custodial parent's income and expenses. Please edit this section!!

Your opinion of why a non-custodial parent does not make child support payments is irrelevant. What matters are the facts, and not opinions in this matter. This is a well researched area, and while there are always exceptions, most of the non-payers cannot pay for one or more reasons, including being in jail. Cia123454321 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most arrears are because of poverty

This point is factually indisputable.

Louisiana reported that 70% of all arrears are owed by parents making less than $10,000/year.[citation needed]

What does matter is facts. It is indisputable that orders are being made that exceed parents ability to pay.[citation needed]

You will notice the Citation Needed tags on your anonymous comment. I am not disputing what you have stated but if you make a statement of fact please cite your references. --Triad man 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree to a point

Regarding whether or not parents who don't pay can afford to.... It does not make sense to me to assume that parents would prefer incarceration over paying reasonably for the support of their children. Even if they were disinterested in their children's welfare, selfish motivation suggests they'd be better off outside of prison than in.

Low income obligees not only have insufficient income to pay support, they have insufficient income to hire good lawyers to protect (or often, even help them understand) their rights. Most states with the Income Shares CS model do allow for a Self Support Reserve for the non-custodial parent, an amount that get's sheltered from potential assignment to support, but it's usually set at or below the Federal Poverty level.

Higher income obligees that wind up in jail for non-support must either be idiots, not truly high income, or victims of a broken system. I find it hard to believe that the majority of them prefer jail to living in a 1500 sq ft Ranch rather than a 2500 sq ft Colonial.

129.33.1.37 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While we all have opinions, some more informed than others, it's irrelevant. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Triad man 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News excerpt

Fox News quotes do not reliable sources make, so I've deleted this: "According to Fox News: 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." Unless the author can locate and cite the source Fox News quotes, it has no place here. Kemet 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender Bias

Although the term "deadbeat parent" is mentioned in the intro, the fact that there is no associated article, nor an article for "deadbeat mother" makes this article inherently gender biased. I suggest renaming to "deadbeat parent."

I agree, this article should be renamed, edited to reflect the name change and have deadbeat dad/mom redirected here.Triad man 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be accused of being PC, but I am a single father who receives no support or involvement from the mother. All of the discussions on the talk page are gender-neutral, shouldn't the title reflect this? Doc Gloom 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forced paternity as Domestic violence

It seems that this section was recently added at the top of this article, claiming that "Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men." While that is probably true in some cases, this assertion is a)unsourced b)given unreasonable prominence in an article that purports to be about the subject of parents who do not fulfill their obligations to pay child support. I think it needs to go, be seriously amended, or put in a place into the article that more accurately reflects that it is a minority point of view and not uniformly true in most cases. The assertion that "forced paternity" is a kind of "domestic violence" seems particularly troublesome and original research to me, as redefining terms with commonly understood meanings is not Wikipedia's purpose. Dina 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section I've described as it is completely unsourced and, in my view, quite POV in an article that already suffers from POV problems. Here it is Dina 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC):

Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men.

[edit] Forced paternity as domestic violence against men

Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or his consent constitutes domestic violence. Domestic violence, whether against women or men, can take a physical form, or can take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common forms of non-physical domestic violence against men.

Many people ignore or minimize the importance of non-physical domestic violence, even though

    (1)it may be far more common,  
    (2)it may induce more severe suffering, and 
    (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims' lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control, and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception, and emergency contraception.

[edit] Additionally, a title suggestion

After a bit of research I'd like to suggest that the title of this article be changed to "noncompliant payers of child support". Awkward yes, and a redirect from "deadbeat dad" should remain, as that is, frankly, at least in the U.S. the more "common" term. But I agree that as a title for an article "deadbeat dad" is both inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Dina 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some confusion

The article starts by saying the term is primarily used in the US, then refers to the child support agency in the UK. Also - it's a matter of fact that - although the article defines the meaning of the term reasonably well (if not a little too broadly) - the term as used referred to pretty much all divorced and never married fathers, and was strongly linked even more generally to anti-male rhetoric. The myth that fathers often abandon mothers and children was predicated on the idea that all men are selfish pigs (if I may use that term simply for the sake of brevity) and all women (and by extention children) are victims in a male-dominated society. One should not lose sight however, of the specific intent behind use of the term and the long and intense propaganda campaign that went with it. The federal government passed a series of corrupt reforms which would not have been accepted by the general public if they had been viewed objectively. Easily predicting that the victims of reforms (fathers) would complain, it was necessary to define them in such a way that their complaints and arguments would be ignored. As I have said that the article's definition may be slightly too broad - it is because there were a larger number of features associated with the term - including a "deadbeat dad's" high income, that he could easily afford to support his children but simply refused to do so, that he had abandoned the family rather than being forced from it by divorce, that the noncustodial parent is poor such that both she and the children were left "living in a hovel" and dependent on public support .... I have estimated that less than 1 percent (perhaps less than half a percent) of the subject population actually fits the definition. Certainly it is far less than those who simply fall behind in payments. Rogerfgay 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the article's reference to a UK agency to explain a term used primarily in the US: I have proposed that the title of article Child_support_in_the_United_States be changed - one option suggested is that the article should be named like articles covering similar material in other countries; by the name of the agency Talk:Child_support_in_the_United_States. Rogerfgay 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shackelford

Removed Shackelford from further reading list. Discussion about "deadbeat dads" included many articles attempting to explain why there were so many, done by researchers who assumed the truth of it. Shackelford's research for example, repeats a myth produced by the US Bureau of Census I believe it was (50% receive no payment, 25% receive partial payment). He then wants to explain from an evolutionary perspective, why men are such irresponsible pigs (expession for brevity) in their handling of family responsibilities in modern life. If this reference were given as an aid in explaining the extent of the problem with anti-father propaganda, it would serve a useful purpose in connection with the article. But it is simply one of many mistakes of that era in which researchers presumed the myth of deadbeat dads to be true, and launched investigations based on that belief. I have added two references for further reading that provide credible factual science and analysis of the politics involved. Rogerfgay 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the article includes the shared parenting issue in discussion, I have added Custody Revolution by Warsak to the further reading list. Bravers' study (leading to his book listed in further reading) was the largest federally funded study on divorced fathers performed in the US (and most likely the world), and its credibility has never been challenged. Warsak performed the longest study of noncustodial parents specific to custody and visitation. Likewise, his study has enormous credibility. Baskerville has done the most to study (and is well published academically and otherwise) from a political scientists perspective. Although the book is new, no one has done more to provide honest and competent analysis (or been published more on the subject) from that perspective than Baskerville. Rogerfgay 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead beat dads

From what I have gone through, my point of view is simple. The non custodial parent never wanted to pay child support,Period! No poverty involved and If he had paid his silly chump change(child support). He would be caught up. Helping his children, that he wanted to have. But, Never,ever, made any effort to see or help through life via agreements or anything else or even the courts. Just abandoned them and ran. They are now 17 and 15.I pay my 3/4 and his 1/4. The guy makes awesome money laying carpet and tile. To bad he is a druggie and an alcoholic. Did I mention he was in jail a few weeks ago with a perge of 4,000 and they let him go.He didn't pay it and he didn't serve his six months.They know he's not going to pay untill he is made to pay it.So Why let him out? When is some one going to step up and make the laws more strict for the people who truly need it. Set Up and account to where I and/or the kids can't touch it. Ask me if they need clothes,or books for school and buy the damn things. Save up or create a collage fund. So, they have a chance to go to collage. Do Something, anything. By the way His name Lawrence Thomas Funsch. He has several children roaming around and pays no support to any of them. Bet he's on the run again.Must suck looking over his shoulders all the time and the inconvenience of going to jail for a few days,plus he can't have anything. He has to hide it. What kind of life is that? Did I tell you I was willing to drop the whole child support bit if he would just help me long enough to get through school 1 and 3/4 of a year verses 18. What was the big deal there? That was a few years back. It was so I can better myself. Get a better paying job to support my children. No reply and I know he got the letter. I was willing to work with this sorry s.o.b. Never made any rash choices when it came to his children.. That to me is a dead beat dad!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.111.95 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move Proposal

The title of this page produces clear, obvious gender bias. As it is possible for a parent of any gender to be forced to pay child support, and it is possible for a parent of any gender to be not in compliance with said child support order, I see no reason for the title page to hold this kind of bias. I am proposing, a renaming to Deadbeat Parent and partial rewrite of the article to help maintain WP:NPOV as much as possible. Does anyone disagree? Celarnor (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one seemed to care, I've moved the page to Deadbeat Parents and changed a few links in pages such as Child Support. The majority of the pages that linked here were user talk pages and instances where the gender-specific form is required. Celarnor (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)