Replies

True welfare is not just about dead beat dad or dead beat moms. Many are poor and many are uneducated. However, by tracking down and making the missing parent pay be it a mother or father, the burden on the state would be less...i.e less of our tax dollars going to a governmental program that in My view as only added to the welfare rolls in the last 30 years and has done nothing until 1996 to help people out of poverty. The children of welfare parents are more likely to themselves end in welfare. Now if both parents would help raise the child the child stands a much better chance in the world. Also the threat of guaranteed payment would stop alot of these out of wedlock births before they occur.

As far as biased law you are correct with the stereotype. But if you look at most stereotypes there is a grain of truth to some of the traits. True, a stereotype paints with a broad brush but.... child supports as it is now is basically a way for a woman to be able to get a divorce easily. Without child support a vast amount of women would not be able to support themselves nor their children with a one parent family. So of course all the "women" help groups will defend this program but that does not make the current system just. Instead of making divorce easier they should make it harder IMO. Neither child support nor custody should be biased towards women. Men are just as capable of raising their offspring as women. As far as boys are concerned much more capable.

The following is a clip out of Mark Goldblatt's, AmerSpec, column today:

The textbook example of this, of course, is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program enacted during the 1960s as part of the Johnson Administration's Great Society. The intention -- to provide a cash benefit to unwed mothers struggling to support their children -- was undeniably noble. The outcome, however, was the dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock births among African Americans, which soared from 26% in 1965 to its current level of 68%. Good intentions resulted in the greatest setback to black progress in America since slavery.

In most cases the mother refused to or could not name the "father". This was true for all ethnicities. The welfare benefits paid better than what the dad's would or could pay.

Nonetheless, the Clinton Administration in the 90s brought us the "DeadBeat Dad's Program". And the state dissomasters on what fathers should or would pay was increased. Bureacracies (paid for for by STATE and FED taxpayers) arose to specifically track down "deadbeat" dads. It was effective in some cases -- but the downside of language of the bill put a number of men in prison, whether rightly or wrongly. It garnished also, through the man's employer -- his wages, and put his name on a federal ROSTER (in a "criminal" capacity)-- effectively dinging his ability to obtain or maintain credible employment. If he could not pay those bills, he was placed in jail.

If a father cannot work to pay his "child support bills", and the state throws him in jail, what good is this to the child? Or the state taxpayers?

Furthermore, the state dissomasters took into their accounts -- CREDIT CARD OFFERS. Meaning, if a credit card offered a dad a credit card(s) in the amount of $10,000 credit limit -- this was added to his "income" upon which the state based the child support monthly payments, in their thinking that he had the "potential" to pay that high an amount. In consequence, a number of dads who couldn't pay those amounts..were placed in jail and most certainly in criminal "light". Who does this help? And when the dad paid for lawyers to defend him, get him out of jail (at his own cost, whereas the states provide "pro-bono" lawyer services (paid for by the taxpayer) for the mother), his "debts" remain on his credit record.

So, no. I don't think there are easy answers to this matter.

What is known, from data, is that where joint custody is established, the money and support tends to work out far, far better. The problems then usually arise during the "mother as primary custody" cases.

I read some studies in the mid-80s in re poverty single-moms. The dads would usually stay in the picture, but disappear as the social worker arrived; but because Welfare paid more to a family than any amount the bio dad could muster. It paid sufficiently that mom, dad, and children could reside, albeit, not neatly better than if dad were working and financially supporting his family; and yes, some men simply do not have the skills necessary for gainful employment. Many of the "social benefit" laws simply would not and did not include "men".

I was involved in a effort, in CA, in the 90s to repeal "No-Fault Divorce" laws. It didn't come to fruition.

As far as biased law you are correct with the stereotype. But if you look at most stereotypes there is a grain of truth to some of the traits. True, a stereotype paints with a broad brush but.... child supports as it is now is basically a way for a woman to be able to get a divorce easily.

I recall the last, most recent stat, down from earlier figures, shows women filing for divorce in 70% of all divorce cases.

Without child support a vast amount of women would not be able to support themselves nor their children with a one parent family.

Yes, but now they have Big Government as their children's daddies.

I'm not talking about "deadbeats". I'm talking about your average dad who didn't want to divorce but the wife did, and under No-Fault, she could do whatever she damned well pleased.

I've seen this through children's eyes. There's a backlash against "mommy" coming, I predict this, very squarely.

In the mid-90s, in debates, I proffered my opinion that when a couple divorces (sans domestic violence, etc.) the couple should maintain the family home and an apartment. Instead of the children being shuffled between mom's and dad's places of residences, I think the parents should do the shuffling; leaving the children in one stable home location. Good idea in theory; but I dread the government getting involved in this one.

Neither child support nor custody should be biased towards women. Men are just as capable of raising their offspring as women. As far as boys are concerned much more capable.

I perfectly agree with you.

I think back to the mid-60s. Ocassionally there'd be a sprinkle on a dad leaving his family. Then feminism. Suddenly more and more women were leaving their families -- excuse me, rather taking their families and sticking dad in the corner. No-fault Divorce and Feminist Sloganeering brought this about. When something like a "yell" is considered as "domestic violence" in feminist circles, and then used to support the passage of "No Fault Divorce", chaos, persecution, and pain and suffering definitely will follow.