Don Mathis: It's Time for Newspapers to Remove the Word 'Deadbeat' from Their Lexicon
September 17th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: My recent co-authored column, Passport Rules Unfair to Child Support Debtors (San Antonio Express-News, 9/8/07), criticizes the new child support/passport rules which are so overwhelmingly popular among the editorial boards of our nation's newspapers. The column was a response to the Express-News' recent editorial “Federal law catching up with deadbeat parents” (8/23/07). I commend the paper for its willingness to publish such criticism.
Texas shared parenting advocate Don Mathis had a letter published in the Express-News concerning my column, in which he called upon the paper to "remove the word 'deadbeat' from its lexicon." His letter is below, and can also be seen here.
Dads are dead broke, not deadbeat
The statistic from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement quoted by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks is more than interesting (“Passport rules unfair to child support debtors,” Sept. 12). It was reported that fewer than 4 percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year.
Why is it that if a poor custodial mom cannot make ends meet, we offer her assistance? And if an impoverished noncustodial dad has the same problems, we make him a criminal?
It is time for the Express-News to remove the word “deadbeat” from its lexicon. “Dead broke” is more like it. Being poor should not be a crime.
—Don Mathis,
Sherman, Texas
To write a Letter to the Editor regarding Passport Rules Unfair to Child Support Debtors (9/8/07), write to letters@express-news.net.
"));
19 queries. 0.341 seconds.
September 17th, 2007 at 2:03 am
I view the term "Deadbeat Dad" as wishful thinking by society in general.
It's a quick and easy way of dismissing a relationship between a father and his children. The term makes it easy for society to pigeonhole non-custodial fathers.
I also view the term from a court's point of view. If a parent is deemed a "deadbeat" , then there is no reason to feel guilty when you limit parenting time (alienation of the children) or jail the poor (monetarily) fellow. I now understand after going through some turmoil with my child that it is indeed the family law system which enables, fascilitates, and condones parental alienation. Their called guidelines. Guidelines of alienation.
But so much of society is extremely blissful. Ignorance is bliss.
It's FatherTime
September 17th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Humans need someone to blame. They can't blame women, our sympathy makes women always innocent victims. It's easier to condemn a poor father than a rich lawyer.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
I wish the average deadbeat was cared as much what he was called as the female haters that post here care about them. Really, when someone creates a child, leaves, and doesn't pay anymore, has no relationship with the child even though they are less than 12 miles away when they've been told sincerely "you know child support and knowing your daughter are two separate issues, you just say the word and you have open access to meeting her and getting to know her" and chooses not to – that is a deadbeat! It's not someone who is broke and can't pay, but takes some kind of pressure off, or makes even a marginal payment- It's a deadbeat. As long as there are deadbeats - lets keep it in the lexicon.
Keep repeating the lie that all deadbeats are broke and would like nothing more than support their child, maybe a few other dads will start to believe it; the moms doing the work, and the financial end, and the emotional end, and everything in between know otherwise.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:50 am
I agree there are some fathers that do not take responsibility for thier kids. There are also just as many moms that do not take responsibility for thier kids. There is also another side of moms who decide they do not like the childrens fathers wheather he pays, spends time with, or anything in between for his children. These are the moms who need to take a second look at thierselves. The ones they hurt are the children and the fathers. They are only interested in self gain.
September 18th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Here is a possible idea about how to get more honest and appropriate "word-choice" behavior by newspapers.
Right now, newspapers are having the most difficult time financially that they have had in recent memory. They are under assault by more effective and measurable (for advertising) media such as the web. They face increasing costs for physical distribution and printing. They are losing market share in many of the horizontal news categories which they cover (national news, stock quotes, international news, help wanted ads, and classifieds).
In other words, they can't afford to lose any more advertisers or subscribers. But they do churn out original or semi-original content every day.
So, why don't we get back to the good old boycott?
Emails sent to a newspaper who abuses men via inappropriate name-calling and "word choice" should receive a volley of emails by any and all of us who offended by their actions. And threats of, and actual, cancellations of subscriptions among those who do subscribe, and threats to send to all of one's email contact list the suggestion that they switch to a competing online news source to the offending paper, and offering links to several alternatives (as most papers are of course, also online).
Believe me, if there has ever been a time in the last 50 years when newspapers (in particular) would listen to offended readers and modify their behavior, now is that time.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Newspapers like the New York Times certainly do not cover the fathers' rights movement.
September 18th, 2007 at 10:10 am
For those that have a passport problem and the passport has been revoked for child support arrears Take a look at the definition at the words "Extenuating circumstances" . According to the Black dictionary, It means not paying child support is a criminal act and that it is aggravated, heinous, or reprehensible. Does that meam being ill is a unforgiving crime and that being declared by the Social Security Administration disabled is just a means of masking that crime. "Extenuating circumstances" is use in the regulation to get your passport back as being the only exception if you can not pay arrears. Should it be changed to meet the U. S. Department's Civil Rights regulation section 504 standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1993? The State Department/Homeland Security does not have the Section 504 in their regulations. Write to me ras6057499@hotmail.com
September 18th, 2007 at 11:46 am
The suggestion to rename ourselves ‘deadbroke’ is a good one, but it will never happen.
Deadbeat dads are a great whipping boy, and a great political football for the media & politicians in election years.
The only people who are ‘dead broke’ are the mothers who can’t get the support from those bad, evil, callous men who walked away from their obligations, and spent all their money on their new mistresses, and vacations at Club Med.
Calling men ‘DeadBroke’ won’t be allowed to happen, and here’s why. There are about 4 ½ million men who fail to keep up with their child support.
( about 8 ½ million court orders, and 55% do not keep up with the court ordered $$ amount) …See page 4 and page 7.
The official government statistics don’t even begin to address the scale of this problem.
Society has been hiding & denying that most unmarried fathers are actually living near the poverty level.
In the U.S. there are 25 million—to 30 million unmarried fathers who are trying to support their kids. The majority of these men are not able to afford the basics without borrowing from credit cards, relatives, and going into bankruptcy. Most are not even close to being self sufficient, after tax and child support obligations.
If the truth ever gets out that more than 20 million fathers are deadbroke, then that would explode the convenient myth that men are profiting and comfortable after divorce, whereas women take a fiscal hit.
We need a major media outlet, and a national political figure to carry this banner, and demand a study sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, to get to the bottom of this. And then post it on the White House web site for all Americans to understand.
There’s too much misinformation and propaganda—and the lawyers & feminists like it that way.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
What I have always found interesting is that Mothers seem to have no legal liability to aid in supporting their children. In this age of supposed equality a divorced Dad should be responsible for half of his child's needs, meaning the mother is responsible for the other 50%. Yet we find Dads footing the entire bill plus and the Mom often contributes nothing, not a single penny. And the ones who demand thousands per month, some want tens of thousands for just one child, amaze me. How could it possibly cost that much to feed and clothe one kid every month?
I was one of the lucky ones 20 years ago, I got sole custody of my three, the court refused to give me child support, even though I only want $1 a month per child. The reason for that amount was so that she would be reminded every month that she had children. As it was she disappeared for almost 8 years. It wasn't until we moved and she found out we had moved into the area where she lived that she resurfaced and wanted to see the kids. I then told her Ok but I want the child support, $1 per month per child, she pulled $3 out of her jeans and handed it over. To this day that represents the only money she ever paid during the 12 plus years I raised them on my own.
I would like to see the women pony up dollar for dollar what the Dad is forced to pay, and that she prove it to the support collection departments every month. She shows her first and then Dad can offer matching funds. In some instances I would like to see the Dad do the grocery shopping each week, fully deductible from his 50%, that way he would know the kids at least had food in the house.
I would also like to see the removal of Judges that can't add or subtract, the ones that issue awards that are impossible for Dads to pay and for any that exceed a third of his take home pay.
Then again if we cut the military war budget by a mere 10% or even less, every kid in this country could have plenty to eat, medical care when they need it, decent clothing and shelter, and a decent education.
We have such lousy misguided misdirected priorities in this country it sometimes amazes me we still exist.\
Of course doing away with the no fault divorce, once there are children, might help the problem of dysfunctional broken families; after all they did promise for richer or poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part didn't they? And that is a contract is it not? How about a contract enforcement agency instead? Perhaps that would help people to make better choices up front, bring back the old idea of ones word being their bond and something never to be broken, bring back a little thing called honor and integrity.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I agree with Jon. Why is it a mother does not have to support her kids. The man is not the only one who made them. Children that are grown up and from a divorced home should ask thierselves did mom ever work? If the answer is no! Then who is the deadbeat. Who could have made life better and chose not to. I am married and my husband worked up until a few years ago. He retired with a disability. Instead of walking out, I chose to go to school and better myseelf. This has benefited our family. I love my husband as much now as when we first married. I also have 8 children. If I can do it. Then any female should be able to do the same. This making men out to be the bad guy is for the beans.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Chew on this. The 400 richest Americans have a net worth of $1.25 trillion.
.
some numbers on unmarried dads who pay child support. According to the Census Bureau, there are about 8 ½ million dads under court ordered child support.
Personally, I think the true number of unmarried fathers is actually double or triple the figure of 8 million cited by Census. Obviously, many of those are not counted as paying child support.
The ‘official’ 8 ½ million unmarried dads—( who are under a child support order)-- have a collective net worth close to zero.
Prove me wrong.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Correction to my above entry:
Chew on this. The 400 richest Americans have a net worth of $1.25 trillion.
.
some numbers on unmarried dads who pay child support. According to the Census Bureau, there are about 8 ½ million dads under court ordered child support.
Personally, I think the true number of unmarried fathers is actually double or triple the figure of 8 million cited by Census. Obviously, many of those are not counted as paying child support.
The ‘official’ 8 ½ million unmarried dads—( who are under a child support order)-- have a collective net worth close to zero.
Prove me wrong.
September 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I think the term "deadbeat" refers to those men AND women who are very lacksadaisical and just really show no interest in their children. Even if the child wasnt created out of love, or on "purpose", we as adults need to grow up and take full, total responsibility for the life we helped create. I am a single father raising my son and daughter, and the joy i get from it is worth more than any material item. As far as child support, i do feel the laws need to be restructured so the person recieving the support is made to account for where the funds go, period, and if its found that its not being used in any way towards the child, they should be reprimanded, and possibly lose custody of the child(ren).
September 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Daddy O I agree with what you are saying. In most cases it is not that the fathers do not want to see or support thier kids. Alot of times the mothers want the support without having to deal with the father. In most cases it is okey for the mother to get on with her life. Getting remarried, keeping the kids, but without the fathers. In all fairness these children were not just born to the mother, but also a father. If she did not want the father in the picture, she should of thought twice before hooking up with him.You ask any father or child about the effects this has on them and then tell me the courts are fair.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
yes--u really hit that on the head. that was the situation in my case. When the child support worker told my son's mother what she could get monthly from me, all she saw was drugs, new purses, shoes, clothes and places to eat . I pay her support( over $500 a month), and still buy clothes and shoes for my son as she wont do it, and she knows i will. she is the woman u are describing...the one who only needs the money--any man can be a father figure, whether he loves my son or not. The courts are very biased towards fathers, and we have to be immaculate for the courts to recognize us as good parents. those "deadbeats" that are the focus of the article are the main reasons the courts look so negatively at fathers...mothers are normally given sympathy, while fathers are looked at as always trying to shirk the responsibility, and it should be a case-by-case basis.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Amazing isn't it?? Funny how AG (Texas) Greg Abbott runs his dog and pony show around Texas!
The whole thing of course is about nothing but MONEY, not in the sanctimonious name of "the best interests of the child" on which the Texas Family Code is predicated. Of course he should get an award from the NSCEA(today on Google) ; Criminals generally recignize each other! If truly the words meant anything then Greggy would have lost his license to practise law a long time ago, just as did Mr. Nifong (the Duke La Crosse Incident ). But wait we would also have to take out former AG Dan Morales (oops he has already been taken out), former AG John Cornyn, and former AG Jim Mattox.
How can these members of the Bar, so close to diety-fication for God's sake, have been allowed to continue on a rabbit trail to the utter disregard for other critical and practical need of children? How can they disregard the effects of their intrusions on the subsequent fallout? Want some? Doesn't everyone know by now that most of half the nation's fathers fathers 'drift' out of the lives of their kids? Doesn't everyone know by now that 40% of custodial mothers subvert and undermine relationship a child would have with its father? Doesn't everyone know that 85% of half the nation's single parent households are female headed? And what of all the many studies and findings and news reports we are seeing about the terrible things children are doing today? 'Bowling Columbine' anyone?
And what of the preceeding effects of these AG fascist bullies ? Has anyone bothered to ask, especially after all these years of PRWORA, aka, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, just how many babies are being conceived by women who had fully well planned after that hot night of ovualtion, a direct path into the offices of States Attorney General's from the maternity wards around the country?
Nope it ain't good Texas Chili until you have tossed in a few commodified infant body parts! Former henchman Sentor Phil Gramm said it best for Texas in his run against Lloyd Doggett, a good guy: "Telling the Truth just ain't Texas".
Living by truth, or even by the Texas Family Code apparently 'Just ain't Texas' either. Sad thing is this disease has pervaded the veins and arteries of America. Its terminal folks! Time to jump ship!
Robert Gartner
Houston, Texas
September 20th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
just when i think i am the only person on the planet who notices things---i get proven wrong!!!! i truly agree w u on the fact the perverse child support laws contribute to the diminishing role of the father in familes these days.
i admit that i had a very bad experience in the child support office when it seemed as if the caseworker had a "problem" with me, and wanted her to get " as much as she could out of me". it was as if the caseworker was going to get commision from it or something!!! if it wasnt for my strong moral beliefs, i prob would not be as active a father as i am b/c i was disheartened after that experience. and it gets worse--i am in a custody battle--the courts STILL make me pay full support and we have joint custody until the final hearing. she doesnt get it, but i still have to pay it, and its not even going towards my son--its just sitting in an account until the final decision is made---now that is a good example of "the best interest of the child"....