New Column: Obama's Responsible Fatherhood Bill--Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
July 9th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
My new co-authored column, Obama's Responsible Fatherhood Bill--Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick (Wisconsin State Journal, Buffalo News, 6/30/07), criticizes the newly introduced Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 for misunderstanding the roots of fatherlessness.
To write a Letter to the Editor of the Wisconsin State Journal regarding Fatherhood bill: Not enough carrot, too much stick, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Buffalo News regarding Obama’s legislation does too little to encourage fathers, click here.
I co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Obama's Responsible Fatherhood Bill--Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State Journal, Buffalo News, 6/30/07
U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.
Currently many noncustodial fathers—particularly African-American and Latino fathers, upon whom Obama often focuses—are required to pay their child support to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, instead of to the children’s mothers. This is demoralizing for low-income men struggling to make a difference in their kids’ lives.
The Responsible Fathers Act will make this money go directly to the mothers, instead of the state, a policy which research shows helps bring fathers closer to their children. The bill will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services.
All of these are good things, but the bill’s stick—increasing federal reimbursements for child support enforcement--is damaging and misguided. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year.
Most "deadbeat dads" are low-income men who are unable to meet the demands of the child support system because of their employment problems. Stepping up already draconian enforcement only makes it more difficult for them to play a meaningful role in their children’s lives.
Bayh himself endorses such wrongheaded efforts, boasting without a trace of irony that when he was the governor of Indiana, “We used ‘most wanted’ posters to track down deadbeat parents and intercepted their tax refunds, lottery winnings and unemployment benefits” (emphasis added).
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.
While some fathers voluntarily remove themselves from their children’s lives, many seek a greater role. Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court, and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.
According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.
The benefits these fathers could provide their children are incalculable. For example, a study recently released by Boston College found that when nonresident fathers are involved in their adolescent children’s lives, the incidence of substance abuse, violence, crime, and truancy decreases markedly. Most of the families in the study, which was published in the journal Child Development, are low-income African-American and Hispanic families. The study's lead author, professor Rebekah Levine Coley, says the study found involved nonresident fathers to be “an important protective factor for adolescents."
Obama is correct when he notes that it would be naïve to think “government alone can solve this problem.” Yet while the text of the Responsible Fatherhood Act mentions “child support” 65 times, “custody,” “visitation,” “parenting time,” and “access denial” do not appear even once. Lawmakers can’t turn a disinterested father into a caring one, but they can do much to break down the many barriers separating devoted fathers from their children. That’s where the focus of the Responsible Fatherhood Act should be.
"));
19 queries. 0.546 seconds.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:55 am
There are four situations we see in divorce/separation/unmarried-parents: A) No problem B) The NC parent is a problem C) The Custodial Parent is a problem D) There is an external problem. Groups A, B & C are roughly the same size and group D is quite small.
Obama, and it seems all government people, demand that all problems are group B. What this does is cause irreparable harm to the innocents in group C. Almost all of the people in group C are fathers. Thus, Obama and all the rest are really demanding irreparable harm to children and innocent fathers. That's the reality of the thing.
This is very much a case of having a hammer and thus demanding that all problems are nails. Why not get a screw driver and use the hammer when appropriate and the screw driver where appropriate? Then get a wrench for the small group of external problems. With the right tools, once solves problems rather than hurting innocent people.
July 9th, 2007 at 4:07 am
Obama is a bigot - what about a "Responsible MOTHERHOOD" bill?
July 9th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Or how about a Responsible Parent bill? Why not use gender neutral language, if equality is the goal?
July 9th, 2007 at 6:11 am
When I first heard the remark Obama made about men needing to be responsible and "stop acting like little boys", I wrote to the Obama camp challenging Mr. Obama to look at the other side of the equation. What about the men who are constantly abused by the "system" when they do not deserve it, ie low income men who cannot pay the often outrageous and in most cases fabricated charges for state debt reimbursement. There needs to be more accountability for keeping track of public assistance payments a woman actually receives. As it is now, all that is required to make a claim for state debt reimbursement is for some caseworker to handwrite a number in a box on a pre-printed legal form. There is no policy to account for whatever money the woman actually received and charge only that. Instead, men end up paying hundreds of times more than their ex-wives actually received (provided they really received any public assistance at all) for state debt. This amounts to nothing more that legalized blackmail and extortion as the money does not go to help the ex-wife or the children, only the oftentimes private corporations that adminster child support programs for a given state. Obama's bill does not go far enough towards fixing the real problem, allowing fathers to actually play a meaningful role in their children's lives. How can a man be a good father as Obama tries to say this bill makes him when he is forced to work 2-3 jobs in order to pay not only child support but the outrageously high corporate welfare to private corporations that make erroneous claims for state debt reimbursement? In most if not all child support cases, state debt reimbursement is claimed. Usually the claim is $10,000 or more. This of course, makes the man a felon because it is more than $5,000 and puts him a deep hole financially before he even makes the first payment. Then the "state debt reimbursement" claim is added to as time goes on, whether or not a woman actually receives public assistance, thus enslaving a man for the entirety of his working life and possibly through retirement. Where does the abuse end?!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 7:45 am
We have presidential candidates trying to look presidential by going after the boogeyman of the century (the deadbeat dad).........
Notice how gender neutral their legislation's name is....... "Responsible Fatherhood"
when it comes to legislation, there are only two times laws are allowed to be given non-nuetral gender names (when they are protecting women and not protecting men or when they are blaming men and not blaming women)......otherwise, all legislation must have gender neutral names
sexsim is bad, but the kind of sexism that is aimed at men is good (as long as you support the matriarchy)....
July 9th, 2007 at 9:05 am
I was a divorced mother who worked and raised a son from the time he was 2 years old. I struggled. But I worked. My ex-husband paid child support, but I never expected him to pay more than was "fair", or so much that he was not allowed to have a life after divorce. I do not understand why our system allows women to abuse it, and the men they often "rope" into relationships by pregnancy. My son has 2 children by a woman who has figured out how to use the system. She left him for his "best" friend. Has had 2 more "accidental" pregnancies with him since splitting up with my son (can't figure out how that's happening??). He has always paid his child support, and accrued an arrearage during a time of unemployment after being laid off. Even that arrearage is paid off now. In August of 2006 she sent his 9 year old son to live with him (both the child and my son wanted this and it worked out great), saying she couldn't control the boy, and he didn't get along with the live-in boyfriend. If my son wouldn't "take" him, she was going to have him tested and medicated for ADD. He moved in with my son in August and began attending school. There were issues - but nothing that couldn't be handled. His grades were up and he was happy. In December when my son went to the courthouse to file papers to get his child support stopped because they each had one child and she was still getting full support, he found out that she had not contacted the department of public aid to notify them that the boy was no longer living in her home, and still had a medical card on both children, even though my son carries insurance on them. Long story short...she was about to get in trouble. So at the end of January she picked my grandson up for her usual weekend, and refused to return him. We were not allowed any visitation. It took 5 months and $2500 to even get to a courtdate, and then her attorney died, so now we are back to square one. Our attorney, nor the court system here in Illinois seem to care that a father who wants to be involved in his children's lives is being denied that right. You can bet if he didn't pay child support for 5 months, he'd be in jail. Who says that parenting is gender specific? There is so much more to this story, but it would take too long to write. The bottom line is that there is no one who gives a damn about anything buy money when it comes to children these days. My ex-husband was not a good father. But he was still my son's father and denying them visitation would have hurt my son horribly. With so many parents choosing to abandon their children after divorce these days, we truly need some legislation that punishes parents who deprive the children of their rights to 2 parents as well.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Politicians (and the politicians who we call judges and lawyers) all work on the same principle. They decide what public policies suit their personal goals and interests and then come up with attractive language to spin their plans and actions to the press and the general public. It is important not to lose sight of what is being actually done, however. “Federal reimbursements for child support enforcement” or “incentive payments”, as they are referred to in the law, are bribes to public officials because they function as such. The voting public needs to become aware of this.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Amen to that.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:45 am
We must have a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:58 am
"Most "deadbeat dads" are low-income men who are unable to meet the demands of the child support system because of their employment problems. Stepping up already draconian enforcement only makes it more difficult for them to play a meaningful role in their children's lives."
The other major problem with draconian enforcement, it can and does CAUSE arrearages. The smallest bump in the road for those suffering some small, but manageable, down turn in income are forced to continue paying at the same level, so instead of 20-25% of income going towards child support, it is now 40-45%. This in turn causes some difficult choices. If you pay the child support you do not pay for the car. If you do not pay for the car your ability to earn the income the support is pegged at is greatly reduced. If you do not pay the support they come by and jail ruining any chances of a good reputation with your new employer.
When it is all said and done we have just created another with an arrearage and the new income potential of under $10,000, to which they can then celebrate with even more draconian enforcement, taking it to a new income level and snare even more.
What we really need is a Responsible Government Act and any legislator pandering to this be immediately thrown in jail, have enough of his income taken to make it impossible to buy the few basics, and see how he likes it.
Ah but big deal, it will never happen. Instead we just have an army of men marching towards retirement without any means of support for their old age, not money, or children, and we also have an army of children entering life without the benefit of any inheritance in the form of material positions, or accumulated wisdom.
Guess there is probably a reason no advanced civilization has ever survived more than one generation of this.
And for anyone who thinks, what about the children for these income down turns, you just buy a lesser grade of bread like an intact family and make it.
JT
July 9th, 2007 at 10:15 am
WIth the legal system, the only thing they care about are attributes involving money. The state's goal is NOT to keep parents and kids in-tact through a divorce.
Their only goal is to make sure the mother doesn't end up on welfare. The will do ANYTHING to avoid this.
This is why visitation is not enforced. There's no money in it for them. It would be an expense and a responsibility. They do not want that.Taking it on a case-by-case basis would be costly.
Politicians love to say that the children are the future. But the bottom line is that the legal system does NOT care about the children. Neither do the politicians; they just don't have the time. To them, the children are a liability, and better someone else than them.
With so many "independent" women these days, I have to wonder how much of this is actually a money-making ploy by the system. Are women really so helpless that they need this system in-place?
I'm sure there are men out there who are shirking responsibility. I'd venture to guess most of them are victims of failed birth control, or they have been lied to about birth control because the woman wanted a baby or wanted to trap him into sticking around. If men need education on fatherhood, I believe women need education on motherhood. We hear way too often these days about females who are teenagers or in their early 20s who went out and got pregnant on-purpose (without being married) because they wanted to have a baby. That attitude MUST be stopped.
I wrote to Obama about this issue, only to get a generic response from an assistant. I'm sure he has no time for me or my concerns, like the other politicians. But we are part of the big picture. Ignoring us is ignoring the big picture.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am
positions should have been possessions
any inheritance in the form of material possessions
July 9th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Give the mother sole custody have the father pay the mother for this right and allow the father ot visit his children if the mother dosen't object.
This is most politicians idea of "Responsible Fatherhood", and why the family courts are such a mess.
We need someone who has the guts and the inteligence to sift through all of the PC BS and get down to what is honest and true.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Regarding this issue of dad's rights, it's all too clear that dad's have zero rights in our courts today. Politicians attack dads every election year because they think it makes them appear to care about the welfare of our children. Balderdash! They want votes...period!
Dads today are shoved out of their children's lives by our incomprehensible court system. Moms are GIVEN custody regularly, while dads must FIGHT to WIN custody. Statistics show that kids without a dad in the home develop serious issues. Has anyone ever studied homes where the dad got custody? Men are more attentive to their children and their needs than are most moms today. And children raised by the dads are far less likely to develop these same issues...so why does our legal system GIVE mom custody most of the time.
Another issue that needs to be addressed: Why are dads given such restricted access to their children when mom is awarded the right to live with the child and see them daily? If both are equally responsible for bringing a child into the world, and they divorce, both SHOULD have EQUAL access. Why is the mom allowed to dump the children she has custody of, off at the day care or babysitter...why not let dad have the kids at those times?
These politicians are attacking the wrong parent...women should be held responsible if the child they are GIVEN custody of goes astray because they refused the allow the father to help stabilize the child with his input and direction.
The women have custody and refuse to allow dad in the child's life...why does the man get blamed if the child gets into trouble????
July 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Barack Obama is sucking up to the female voters. The title of this bill alone makes my skin crawl. It would have been just as easy to call it the responsible Parenthood bill but that wouldn't get the single mothers all lathered up enough. It reminds me of that episode of Oprah, when they were castigating NBA players as dead-beat dads, and Oprah says, "How do we make men care". She totally glossed over the fact that both these "women" were told by the players that they didn't want to have the kids, but they had them anyway. This society talks about womens rights, and never about womens responsibilities. It's HER body, it's HER choice, but it's YOUR responsibility. If this were called the responsible motherhood bill, please believe Gloria Allred would have her misandrist ass on T.V. trying to sue somebody. How do you make men care? Try caring about men. Quit brown-nosing Barack!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Well said Cynthia
July 9th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Cynthia Ross has opened my eyed with her fair, articulate and inspiring comments. PA dad deserves recognition as well. It is great to see men and woman coming together to shine a light on the greatest civil rights abuses of our modern time. In the future there may be a Violece Against Parenthood Act in which all the cops, judges,NOW members, support magistrates, presidential candidates, government officials and exwives are put into a pit and stoned by the millions of children whose lives have been shortchanged of full complete parenthood by the greedy hordes filling the pit. Real 'Old Testament' justice for the children.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
It seems that people still are largely "disconnected" when it comes to what happens in family courts across the country -- and how federal funding from the national child support program (IV-D) drives what happens in those family courts. Glenn even misses the point in the article...
This "disconnect" is largely the reason why any parent (still mostly fathers - but increasingly mothers) is still separated from their children in family court. It's the reason why a parent has to "fight" in the first place just to be able to simply interact or provide daily care for their own children once their case is brought into the court system.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn... How could you not make the connection in the article? Sure: Statistics show all kinds of bad stuff happens when fathers are absent... blah, blah, blah... But the BIGGEST reason why many (if not most) fathers are absent to begin with isn't because of the family court system... IT'S BECAUSE THE STATE COURT SYSTEMS (read: the states) ONLY MAKE MONEY WHEN FAMILIES ARE SPLIT APART IN THE FIRST PLACE. Only when one parent is ordered out of the lives of their children (and thus forced to pay support) can the state collect a share of that "$5 billion a year" for "enforcing child support".
Further, by acknowledging that there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders - well, that's just like saying that these fathers have all willfully abandoned their children to poverty, but they still want to visit with them... And everyone reading this knows that this is simply not the case.
It would be better if somebody could demonstrate to Obama and Bayh how the federal child support system (moreover, the funding that is provided to the states from it) is actually CREATING MORE FATHERLESS CHILDREN by driving the individual decisions that are being made in family courts across the country every day... you know... "connect" the disconnection that most people still have.
When more people gain the understanding that almost EVERY custody decision that is made in a family court is driven by federal funding for the enforcement of child support, there will be significantly more progress made in changing those decisions.
It becomes common sense at a point: If you pay states to enforce child support orders, and then give those states ultimate discretion in being able to create those orders to enforce - it's the ultimate form of job security... The states are simply creating the situation that makes the states the most money. Anyone who's been to family court knows that there is ultimately one consistent outcome in EVERY disputed custody case: The creation of a court-ordered, child support-paying, non-custodial parent. The state courts make the orders that keep the money rolling in from the feds, and eventually into the courts - and this keeps A LOT of people employed.
This issue can't just stop at the family court level. Sure, there is a bias. Everyone knows about the bias. Now people need to start understanding WHY this bias exists in the first place. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
With sympathy and regret,
Ken Rosebriar
kenrosebriar@comcast.net
July 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Where in the constitution for the United States of America do you find the duty of any parasite in congress to regulate families? Remember the Bill of Rights? Used to be state's rights and personal responsibility. Who is your god?
July 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Deadbeat politicians do not get my vote.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Dave, we gave the United Nations authority to regulate families in 1992 when congress ratified the "Convention on Civil and Political Rights" and it became the law of the land.
I wish more people would become familiar with how the United Nations and the treaties we sign influnce our family court systems.
This is Comment #19 from the General Comments on the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
6. Article 23, paragraph 4, of the Covenant provides that States parties shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
7. With regard to equality as to marriage, the Committee wishes to note in particular that no sex-based discrimination should occur in respect of the acquisition or loss of nationality by reason of marriage. Likewise, the right of each spouse to retain the use of his or her original family name or to participate on an equal basis in the choice of a new family name should be safeguarded.
8. During marriage, the spouses should have equal rights and responsibilities in the family. This equality extends to all matters arising from their relationship, such as choice of residence, running of the household, education of the children and administration of assets. Such equality continues to be applicable to arrangements regarding legal separation or dissolution of the marriage.
9. Thus, any discriminatory treatment in regard to the grounds and procedures for separation or divorce, child custody, maintenance or alimony, visiting rights or the loss or recovery of parental authority must be prohibited, bearing in mind the paramount interest of the children in this connection. States parties should, in particular, include information in their reports concerning the provision made for the necessary protection of any children at the dissolution of a marriage or on the separation of the spouses.
July 10th, 2007 at 5:56 am
"I wrote to Obama about this issue, only to get a generic response from an assistant. I'm sure he has no time for me or my concerns, like the other politicians. But we are part of the big picture. Ignoring us is ignoring the big picture."
I too wrote to Obama about this. All I received was numerous canned responses from his political camp. Obviously, the only people Barack Obama is listening to are notoriously bigoted groups such as NOW, who undoubtedly provide him with huge amounts of cash for his political campaign. Divorced fathers are so strapped financially by the family courts, they have no influence. Until there is such a thing as an honest politician who will listen to the common man, the fight for men's civil rights and the rights of fathers to be part of their children's lives after divorce will continue. As is noted in some of the comments above, if one wants to know what drives the family court industry to treat men as they do, just FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL! Whatever method generates the most money for the federal government and states is the method that will be used, regardless of how many children are harmed by being denied a father in their lives, and how many fathers' rights are routinely violated.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:54 am
"Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007"? Shouldn't the two esteemed U.S. Senators have used the 'politically correct' term generally used as the supposedly gender-neutral pseudonym for 'deadbeat dad', genetically irresponsible parent, etc., i.e. 'non-custodial parent'. Shouldn't it be the "Responsible Non-Custodial Parenting and Healthy Families Act of 2007?
I guess, when my own 'judge' once in charge of our State's Family Court Pilot Program babbled 'fathers, fathers, ...." in court, he was using 'political terminology' as opposed to 'legal terminology'. No, that would make sense either would it?
July 10th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Don't matter how many UN treaties congress signs, they can not lawfully supersede the Constitution and their Oath to uphold the same. Maybe it is time to find a sturdy limb! Must be why we refer to the united States of America as a "democracy"? These financial benefits, taken at the expence of family, are nothing short of evil.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
In Family Court, they write their own rules.
They are accountable to nobody when an appeal is $35,000 to $50,000 and you'd better have the appeal attorney in with you in the original proceedings to lay the proper groundwork. It also helps when the laws are black and white on your side of the issue and the judge clearly did not follow the law. Miss one little detail and your case is dead, no matter how outrageous the decision.
To a Family Court judge, you are no more than a pile of puke.
If you have deluded yourself into thinking you are going to waltz in and tell your story truthfully and all will be made good, maybe getting the crap kicked out of you will beat some sense into you. There are enough websites and blogs to suffice as a wake-up call. Use them.
DanH
July 10th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Sen. Obama has a forum of sorts on Yahoo Answers, under the politics category. You have to be a Yahoo 'user' to post comments, but it is free to set up an account. When you go to Yahoo.com look to the list on the left, 'Answers' is at the top. Once in Answers look for the Politics & Government category. As of a couple of minutes ago it was on the top page of Answers as a Special Feature.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:16 am
SHOW ME THE MONEY!! I think Ken Rosebriar is most excellently right. And I think Obama is no friend of Fathers. Thanks DL. After three years with a Court appointed attorney in Brooklyn I fired him and continue the trial Pro Se. He was one of the best most impressive and ethical attorneys I have ever met but the Family court hadn't paid him in three years, the Judges law secretary told him he wouldn't be paid if he made motions on my behalf and the court clerk was making up hindering rules that kept me from examining the court files without my attorney. Meanwhile the Support Magistrate was the tool for balancing the State budget with Federal money and increasing his own pension at my {and my childs} expense. "The cops don't need you and they expect the same"-- Bob Dylan>>>>>>>VAWA money rules the police force and the municipal government in NYC. The case law they bring up (Boughton) goes back to the 80's and EVERYBODY falls in line on Domestic Violence. "Zero Tolerance "so they CASH IN with $487,000.00 for bullet proof vests in NYC from the Federal Government via VAWA (Violence Against Woman Act) grants. I don't own a gun. I go to Jail for calling my child on the mothers phone (4 year old child) permitted on a Family Court order which is Trumped by the Police Domestic Violence policy. So much for concurrent jurisdiction between Family and Criminal Court in NYS. What the hell happened to 'probable cause'?
July 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
With this bill Obama may have lost my support.... unless the competition is even worse about it.
We need 2 guidelines to be placed immediately on child support:
1) Limitation to a reasonable percentage of a person's income above a reasonable exemption amount.
2) Limitation to a reasonable middle-class actual expected cost to support a child.
I think the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting involuntary servitude supports these limitations, if properly interpreted.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
DJB: So you agree with the notion that parents who are otherwise fit, willing, and able to equally participate in raising their children should be separated from their children during and after a divorce, custody, or paternity action in court just so they can be forced into the child support system simply so the states can continue to collect billions of taxpayer-dollars in federal child support enforcement funding?
Based on these comments, and the comments being made by others - nobody really has a clue how the federal child support system really works... do you?
What DJB's suggested "2 guidelines" do is support the inclusion of the middle class into a free-for-all welfare program. I, frankly, don't want to see my hard-earned money taken out of my paychecks to pay some government collection agency to collect child support for some middle-class soccer-mom driving a brand-new SUV. These are the people who make up the super-majority of the current child support system... not the welfare recipients which Congress initially created the system for.
The only "guideline" that needs to be placed on child support is this: STOP PAYING THE STATES TO FORCE THE UPPER- AND MIDDLE-CLASS INTO THIS WELFARE PROGRAM WHENEVER THERE IS A DISPUTE OVER CUSTODY OR PATERNITY BY REIGNING-IN THE SPENDING ON IT.
With sympathy and regret,
Ken Rosebriar
kenrosebriar@comcast.net
July 13th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Steven Baskerville wrote this article that discribes what Ken is talking about.
It's long but worth while, you can read it here: http://tinyurl.com/3auldd .
July 13th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Baskerville puts things more succinctly in this article: http://tinyurl.com/35jfuz
July 15th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
We all need a SICKO type movie on the subject. In the best interest of the child.
April 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
[...] know. Damn it we know! But, does that mean you just have to spearhead such misguided legislation as the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act. Here's what Mr. Sacks had to say: All of these are good things, but the bill’s [...]
June 16th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
When Obama says that a father's parental responsibility doesn't end at conception, he is purposefully ignoring the FACT that a women's parental responsibility in no way begins there. With the options of abortion, adoption, and these days even "responsible" abandonment, a women's responsibility begins with her CHOICE, and nothing more. Her responsibility is a natural result of her RIGHTS. The entire system of child support (for unmarried parents) attempts foolishly to reverse the natural order, making young men the gatekeepers of young women's chastity, and diminishing the woman's NATURAL incentive to avoid unmarried pregnancy. This is SO obvious that I can't help but think Obama, like Clinton before him, is blind to the truth of the matter because of a desire to punish his absentee father by proxy. Sound social policy would "marry" rights and responsibilities, not merely for fairness sake, but also because the current system undermines the natural order and thereby marriage and society at large.
June 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I wonder what he will say in Albany.
January 18th, 2009 at 1:16 am
[...] GlennSacks.com " Blog Archive " New Column: Obama's Responsible … [...]