TheAgitator.com
Deadbeat Courts
Wednesday, August 4th, 2004Wendy McElroy makes the case for releasing deadbeat dads from prison.
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.
Pretty common. Courts can also force fathers to go to work — even if they’re physically unable — to meet child support obligations. And they’re not nearly as vigilant about enforcing visitation rights.
But at least in McElroy’s cases, the fathers in trouble were the actual fathers. Remember that Matt Welch piece from a while back, where he proved that you don’t have to be the biological father, the non-biological father — hell, you need not have ever met the kid’s mother to be sopped for child support.
How exactly is revoking a professional license going to get one to pay money? Isn’t that like stealing a farmer’s tractor to get him to start farming harder?
And here I thought debtor’s prisons were unconstitutional.
Radley,
what are you feelings on the goverment re applying personal responsiblity to the individual?
i think that the efforts could be funded by a divorce tax, but for the efforts to bear fruit they has to be done fairly.
A judge is deciding two cases on the same day.
Case #1.
Situation:
Girlfriend announces she is pregnant.
He offers to pay for abortion. She declines. Is he responsible for child support payments for the next 18+ years.
Case #2
Situation:
Girlfriend announces she is pregnant.
He guarantees willingness to support child for next 18+ years.
She opts to abort. He objects.
How do you think the judge would rule on each case? Is it consistant?
Mike, based on current trend, in both cases, the guy is screwed.
My own feelings on it. #1) He should have an out. If he doesnt’ wish the baby, then he shouldn’t be obligated to pay child support.
Of course, my feelings change a tad if he willingly had unprotected sex. If he doesn’t discuss with the female what his intentions are regarding any pregnancy that might occur, then he’s kinda stuck. Its a very gray area. But I do believe men should have an out, just as women do.
#2. He has no say. Sorry. But its that simple. Her body, her decision. If he wants a child, he should be with another that wants the same.
As i understand it, my father was drafted into the Army in the 1950s because his nutjob ex-wife said he wasn’t paying child support. He was, but he got sucked in anyway. Luckily, there wasn’t a war on at the time.
(And he’d already served in the Navy – enlisted at 15, I think, which would have been 1946.)
“He guarantees willingness to support child for next 18+ years.
She opts to abort. He objects.”
Well, regardless of what he wants, the fact remains that childbirth is an inherently dangerous situation, and has potentially fatal complications. Even if it’s not fatal, it can involve ruinously expensive medical costs, or the loss of the ability to conceive again.
The risks are greatly reduced with access to good medical care, but they still exist. Women just aren’t all that well designed for childbirth.
If childbirth were as easy as ejaculating, men would have a much better case to make. But as long as having a baby can really screw a woman up, they’ve got priority in the decision.
I just don’t see a way around that.
Maybe men who are concerned about such things should get their ladyfriends to sign pre-coital agreements before hitting the sack.
Or perhaps the man should be required to successfully pass a whole coconut out his ass before he has a say.
As stupid as the rest of the story is, the revocation of professional license is really out of this world.
As Phelps said…
Jon H said, “Women just aren’t all that well designed for childbirth.” That is an absurd statement.
“That is an absurd statement.”
Oh really?
If women were “well designed” for childbirth, there’d be no need for an episiotomy, would there? A body well-suited for giving birth wouldn’t have to be cut to avoid tearing during giving birth.
(Of course, I don’t mean well-designed in a literal sense, because we evolved, we weren’t designed. The point is that women’s bodies just aren’t all that well suited to the task of childbirth.)
Jon H said “If women were “well designed” for childbirth, there’d be no need for an episiotomy, would there?” If only you knew how pompous that sounds. An episiotomy is not NEEDED. It is done out of convenience. It’s more convenient to heal from a cut than a tear. Women for thousands of years having been giving birth without episiotomies. Not all doctors even require the procedure. Some still think it’s better if the woman naturally tears. And what makes you an expert???
We have not evolved. Oh my gosh, I am not having this discussion.
You’re comments read like an arrogant ignoramus.
Awww. Poor guy.
“Or perhaps the man should be required to successfully pass a whole coconut out his ass before he has a say.”
Or perhaps women should take up their ‘fair share’ of the dangerous and deadly jobs that currently kill men almost exclusively, before they continue complaining about unfair pay.
(See, we could play this useless and juvenile game all day…)
Uhm… back to the deadbeat dad thing. There’s a lot not said about this guy. Dad’s tend to cry and whine A LOT when faced with paying child support. And at least the one I know best is great at making you think he’s the victim of circumstances when it boils down to he just hates working 8 hours a day. How many jobs did this guy have over time??? And it doesn’t say that he’d like to take the kiddies for half the time to compensate for lack of the support.
This particular guy had two heart attacks??? How old is he? How many kids is he still supporting????
He wasn’t quoted as saying he lost his license because of not paying child support. Maybe this guy can’t keep a job for other reasons and shouldn’t be practing respiratory therapy, ya know.
Sorry don’t feel too bad for him. At least without knowing a lot more about the situation.
Wendy often tries to make cases based on not enough information. I’d like to hear from Mom on the situation. Her side of the story will likely paint a whole new picture of dear old heartbroke dad.
OK I’m going to harp about the Child Support System in Ohio now.
It apparently is WAY behind New York State because by the time they got around to imprisoning someone in Ohio for not paying up. Dear old dad would be dead and buried from plain old age!
(See, we could play this useless and juvenile game all day…)
You’re not suggesting we have to stop by tomorrow, are you? That might be a little optimistic, considering prior precedent.
As I have seen it play out multiple times, the man is obligated to pay child support to the woman, but the woman is in NO WAY obligated to spend said money on the children he is supporting. SHe can blow it on anything under the sun, with no accounting.
I beleive the system has to be altered to account for money spent on the child’s behalf. If a father sees his support money being blown by mommy and her knew boyfriend, he should be able to spend the money directly on the child and use receipts for such purchases as his back-up for paying his child support.
As far as the father having no say when it comes to abortion, it may be the case, but it is bullshit.
If you have children, and I assume some of you do, I am sorry to tell you this. They are not special…
Do you know that every time a man comes, he comes two hundred million sperm…and you mean to tell me you think your child is special? Because one in two hundred million sperm, that load, we’re talking one load, connected?
Gee, what’re the fucking odds?!
Two hundred million, you know what that means? I have wiped entire civilizations off of my chest, with a gray gym sock.
That is special.
Entire nations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel. That is special, and I want you to think about that, you two-egg carrying beings out there, with that holier-than-thou, we-have-the-gift-of-life attitude. I’ve tossed universes in my underpants while napping!
My father didn’t feel that he should be paying child support. I knew this at the time, but still I never wished he went to jail for it (back in the ’80s I guess they weren’t jailing “deadbeat dads” anyhow). I just wished he could be made to pay, so I wouldn’t have to get the free lunch card at school.
As we’ve discussed before, the “system” is terrible dealing with these cases. It hardly helps the children to have their father jailed. And isn’t that the intention of these laws?
How do you fairly split the cost/responsibility of rearing children when Mom and Dad call it quits? Should the state get involved at all?
that explains what happened to my gray gym socks…
Super, I believe the intention is to intimidate people into doing as the state says without question. If laws were laid out rationally or enacted transparently people would be much less scared of the authorities, and that wouldn’t do at all.
Danni writes: “If only you knew how pompous that sounds. An episiotomy is not NEEDED. It is done out of convenience. It’s more convenient to heal from a cut than a tear. Women for thousands of years having been giving birth without episiotomies. Not all doctors even require the procedure. Some still think it’s better if the woman naturally tears. And what makes you an expert???”
You’re proving my point, Danni.
If women were better built for childbirth THERE WOULD BE NO CHANCE OF TEARING. If there were no chance of tearing, there would be no such thing as an episiotomy.
Get it? The tearing is a design flaw. Whether the flesh is cut by tearing, or by scissors (in order to prevent tearing), it’s a design flaw.
Bernard is right. You can’t win.
I think that the lamentable (and surprising) part about all this is that there is no reliable data about anything. Once we can talk about percentages of fathers able to pay and how many just choose not to, we can see just HOW broken the system is. Are we talking about less than 1% of cases where the father is being jailed for inability (versus choice not to pay or not to work)? This probably requires a minor tweak. Are we talking about 30%? This requires us to blow up the whole system and start over. I have my suspicions (the system is beyond broken), but until we KNOW, we’re relying wholly on anecdotal evidence.
Now, I’m not surprised that no women’s groups are looking into this. They’ve got a pretty good stranglehold on the system. But shouldn’t the government be keeping track of some form of metrics on this? At least 1 state must. They can’t all be running around blind with no responsibility to update anybody. The federal government might, but I can’t believe all 50 states would whiff on the same thing in the same way.
OT:
Jon H
Maybe what you meant to say was that SOME women are not built well for childbirth. Logically, you cannot make the claim that ALL women are not built well for childbirth.
Also, I don’t see how you can claim that the tearing (when it does happen) is a design flaw when it seems to serve a purpose (helping the baby pass down the birth canal while not overstretching the…I can’t believe I have to explain this).
Okay, I’m done here. Back to the “real” topic…
The System is annoyed with Legate Broca’s questions. You have until the August 4, 2004 to cease and desist or you will face the consequences Mr/Mrs/Ms Legate Broca.
Not-so-supergenius writes: “Maybe what you meant to say was that SOME women are not built well for childbirth. Logically, you cannot make the claim that ALL women are not built well for childbirth.”
The tearing is just one example, and yes it only happens to some women. The real point was just that childbirth is more complicated, and more risky, than taking a crap, which seems to be how most men think it works.
“Also, I don’t see how you can claim that the tearing (when it does happen) is a design flaw when it seems to serve a purpose (helping the baby pass down the birth canal while not overstretching the…I can’t believe I have to explain this).”
Yes, obviously, the tearing has a purpose, but the tearing is due to, yes, a design flaw – the body has no better way to solve the problem (if it happens), so it tears. It’s a brute-force solution.
Wouldn’t it be better if the baby could always be accommodated without any tearing, because the anatomy was able to handle it?
It really isn’t that much to ask. It’s a pretty small bit of functionality to desire, given the vast array of bodily adaptations that exist in the species of the world.
Scotty -
How’s your dog? Gearing up for the debates?
i think the entire human body is a bad design. especially when it comes to travel. i think teleportation would have been a much better design.
Jon H.
I think the design flaw is your penis. If it was larger, my vagina could be larger to accomodate the baby. As it is, I have to be “tight” so you can ejaculate in the first place.
Most of your other arguments are just as lame. If child birth is so dangerous, why aren’t women risk averse to unprotected sex? Men only have to fear for thier wallets, but women fear for thier lives!
Roger-
Molly’s doing very well at this point. We’ve just hired Al Shrpton’s speechwriter, so expect her to use big words she doesn’t understand. I’m going to send you a campaign flier. Tell me if you think she needs some sort of Al Gore-like makeover.
Scotty
Jon H, you’re proving my point that we are designed as opposed to evolved because if we have evolved, then why does the flesh in that area still need to tear? Wouldn’t our bodies have fixed that problem itself? Women wouldn’t have taints according to your theory. Cha-ching
What the hell are we talking about? Sex, Drugs, and Rock n Roll. Yes indeed there is a design problem. But it is in the mind of young men and women. We want to have fun. Fuck whoever we want whenever we want. Children, Resposiblities, Working, Who the hell wants that? Oh and Laws who hell wants Laws?
Ms. Danni
How could an omniscient grand engineer make so obvious a mistake? I mean, if he designed how birth was going to take place, with devine intelligence he should have been able to anticipate and account for this with a more practical solution than tearing the hole open more.
No, humans evolved. Now, that evolution might have been guided by an interested party, nudging it in the right direction whenever things got off track, but evolution took place regardless.
Angie,
Since you were the only one who offered a response to the moral, ethical, and legal dilemma I posed, let me share with you my benchmark if I were the judge.
The person making the final decision should be the one to pay for it. Thefore, the gain or loss, credit or blame, is theirs.
Decisions should only be made by those willing to accept the consequences.
In both instances I presented, my answer would be the same; her body, her decision. She lives with the consequences of her choice.
How are humans different today than they were 1000, 2000, or 3000 years ago?
And to the topic, if a man and a woman consent to have sex, then they are both agreeing by their actions that they are willing to suffer the consequences. It’s a non-verbal contract.
Ms. Dani, first of all humans ARE different now than they were 1000, 2000 and 3000 years ago, in both hight and build, and there is eveidence that some of our useless/redundant organs are beginning to go away (apendix, pinky toes and others).
To your non-verbal contract point, the problem is that women have a free-out clause, namely abortion. Men have no such option.
In addition is a contract binding that has partial or false information? Specifically the woman who tells her partner that she is on the pill, unable to have kids, has an IUD, etc., who actully is trying to get pregnant (for a variety of motives). And this scenario happens waaaaay more often than most women care to admit.
Danni writes: “Jon H, you’re proving my point that we are designed as opposed to evolved because if we have evolved, then why does the flesh in that area still need to tear? Wouldn’t our bodies have fixed that problem itself?”
Not necessarily. For one thing, if women were dying because of it, they’d tend to die *after* giving birth, through infection and whatnot. That would reduce how much it could influence evolution, because the woman would already have reproduced. It also might just not cause fatal injuries often enough to really influence evolutionary development very much.
By the way, I’m not saying men are perfect. Our genetic anatomical flaws just don’t tend to exhibit themselves so dramatically, because we don’t do anything as biologically dramatic as pregnancy and birth.
The prostate is probably not ideal, for one.
There’s also flaws shared by men and women. The retina, for example. Or the connection of the esophagus and the trachea, which leads to the possibility of choking.
“In addition is a contract binding that has partial or false information? Specifically the woman who tells her partner that she is on the pill, unable to have kids, has an IUD, etc., who actully is trying to get pregnant (for a variety of motives)”
The man is still free to wear a condom. If it’s *really* important to him that she not get pregnant, then he should wear a condom (or get a vasectomy, which is reversible).
Mike,
(after wadding thru all the other stuff)
For the most part I’ll agree, “her body, her decision” she lives with the consquences of that decision.
But its not so black and white. There is alot of gray area that might crop up.
I think men should cover themselves, and before having sex (yes, that requires thinking before having sex), they discuss any pregnancy that may possibly occur. And their wishes if that happens. I feel if the man makes it very clear he wants no child, 1) he should wear a condom. (too many women have trapped men by saying, “I’m on the pill”. Men need to wisen up and not trust women. And 2) as tacky as it sounds, have some kinda letter that both sign stating that he will not be held responsible for any pregnancy. Granted that may not hold up, but at least it shows his intentions.
As I stated before, many times, men should have an out. And if they show that they did what they could to prevent pregnancy, and state they wish no child, and if pregnancy occurs and the woman wants it, she alone should be responsible for it.
But, this is where it gets hazy. If there is no agreement between the two, then I’m sorry, but both will have to pay the piper. Some women, based on their beliefs, cannot have an abortion, and forcing them to is just wrong. And if the man didnt’ cover his bases (literally), then he needs to pay for his error. (shrugs)
There is just no easy answer to this.
You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. “I believe God created me in one day” Yeah, looks liked He rushed it.
I’ve learned a lot about women. I think I’ve learned exactly how the fall of man occured in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, and Adam said one day, “Wow, Eve, here we are, at one with nature, at one with God, we’ll never age, we’ll never die, and all our dreams come true the instant that we have them.” And Eve said, “Yeah… it’s just not enough is it?”
Fundamentalist Christianity – fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
“Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added ‘em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years.”
Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn’t know that you’d gone to so much trouble. That’s good. You believe the world’s 12,000 years old?
“That’s right.”
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
“Uh-huh.”
Dinosaurs.
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you’d think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
“And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus… with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin’: ‘What a big fucking lizard, Lord!’ But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus’s paw and the big lizard became his friend.
“And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.
“And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord.”
Get this, I actually asked one of these guys, OK, Dinosaurs fossils – how does that fit into you scheme of life? Let me sit down and strap in. He said, “Dinosaur fossils? God put those there to test our faith.” I think God put you here to test my faith, Dude. You believe that? “uh huh.” Does that trouble anyone here? The idea that God.. might be.. fuckin’ with our heads? I have trouble sleeping with that knowledge. Some prankster God running around: “Hu hu ho. We will see who believes in me now, ha ha.” [mimes God burying fossils] “I am God, I am a prankster.” “I am killing Me
Angie: ” And 2) as tacky as it sounds, have some kinda letter that both sign stating that he will not be held responsible for any pregnancy. Granted that may not hold up, but at least it shows his intentions.”
It could be worse…
The guy could have the woman sign and date the condom, then save it after…
“Jenny! Don’t look in the crisper!”
Bill,
Have you seen the new “Starsky and Hutch”? You’re reminding me of when Starsky accidentally drinks the cocaine ‘sweetened’ coffee!!!
MOLLY 2004
Bill, The world is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs died in the flood. There. You don’t have to be confused anymore:)
Richard, our “useless” organs are not going away all by themselves; they are being cut-out/off.
Scotty -
Molly’s campaign has been very convincing so far – She’s taken pretty much no position on anything at all.
Count me in.
Bill Hicks, that is hilarious! :)
bill hicks and all the other atheist out there,
check this out. not saying i agree with everything this guy says, buts its an interesting read.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1576831116/theagitator-20/
Hey Bill:
I’m a Christian who also happens to hold a degree in biochemistry. I do believe in creation (since obviously I believe the Bible) but no thinking person can deny that evolution does happen. You can watch it happen, over the course of weeks or less, with organisms such as bacteria (not so impressive) or fruit flies (a little more so). I’m the first to admit I don’t have all the answers, or even a good one that I can post right now. But please don’t think that all Christians buy into this “the world is 12,000 years old and nothing has changed in that time” nonsense.
Michael, to pick a quote at random from the review:
‘ For example, he contends that God creates material and spiritual substance out of nothing. This nothingness, he notes, corresponds to the definition of physicists who claim that “nothing” is the lack of matter, energy and all 10 theoretical space-time dimensions of the universe, as proposed by mathematics. Thus, he says, God’s creative activity can be substantiated by physical science.’
Let me rewrite this sentence precisely in simpler terms:
‘Because the authors’ definition of ‘nothing’ ties with the definition of ‘nothing’ used by some people who happen to be physicists his claims are substantiated by hard science.’
Well heck, that’s how I define ‘nothing’ too. That must mean that my hypothesis that Bert down the road created Kansas out of nothing last tuesday is substantiated by hard science.
Two words spring to mind.
Smoke and mirrors.
It’s time to actually get rid of Debtor’s Prison.
Put another way, not even laws, courts or judges can get blood out of a turnip.
Common sense is not very common.
Men are required to pay 25% of their income to support their child, the other 75% is child support that the mother pays, for gas, food electric, car, clothes, school supplies, anything for work or whatever,either way both parents pay the custodial parents ALWAYS pay more. My child’s father owes 10,000 in back child support-in southern ohio. He sure seemed interested when he was making her and he knew the consequences. 10,000 doesn’t even come close to the cost I have incurred it doesnt even cover the students loans i encurred in college. I’m sick of hearing deadbeats complain about paying and making excuses or hearing little boys who have no children give their plagerized from jerry springer views of life. They jump job to job and have their license suspended over and over, which really doesn’t matter much to them since most have them suspended anyway. I have worked manual labor, but chose to go to school so I can be a better provider. If I were working manual labor and something would happen to me who would take care of my daughter? her father? Ha!
as for this guy, if this were truly the case any court in the country would overturn the judges ruling and make an exception, it sounds to me like the guy quit working long before he had his heart attacks, 30,000 takes a long time to accumulate. All he had to do was ask the judge to or caseworker he had a heart attack and no income and it would have been adjusted.
Stephanie you’re so unfair it’s disgusting. If you think that a father can adjust his child support payment just because he was fired, physically disabled… then you’re also stupid
The american system is fucked up. End of story