Wendy McElroy links this article from the Christian Science Monitor on child support: ‘Deadbeat’ dads – or just ‘dead broke’?
Most divorced or never-married fathers with an outstanding child-support understand the high cost of falling behind. Those who don’t pay up often face repercussions such as paycheck withholding, automobile-license suspension, even jail time.
Such aggressive pursuit of child-support dollars has not been without its problems – or critics. And perhaps surprisingly, the list of critics now includes more child-welfare advocates.
Organizations including the Washington-based Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) maintain that child-support policies need to recognize economic realities and be more flexible, particularly where low-income, noncustodial fathers are concerned.
“States are frequently not doing enough to help low-income fathers get employment so that they can pay child support,” says Deborah Weinstein, director of CDF’s Family Income Division.
“What we’ve found is that there’s a fundamental tension here between what the fathers can actually financially contribute to their children and the children’s needs,” says Paula Roberts, senior staff attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) in Washington.
This is awfully funny. In 1998, the California Legislature invited a group of child support experts to provide them with advice on reforming the state’s child support system, including Paula Roberts and yours truly. I presented statistics showing that states with high child support guidelines (high percentage of income) have low rates of collection. Paula disagreed with my analysis, and said California merely needed to reorganize its system to track down deadbeats more effectively. The legislature took Paula’s advice, and collections are the same as before.
Maybe you can teach a old dog, or an old feminist, new tricks. The key seems to be to give them time.