The Myth of the Deadbeat Dad

Type the title of this post into Google, and 14,500 web pages turn up (now, I suppose, 14,501). All by father’s rights groups (some of them second wives), or by individual bloggers.

However, in the mainstream news media, the Deadbeat Dad is not a myth, but is one of the world’s worst problems, worse than AIDS, terrorism, and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

According to Charles Blow of the New York Times , 60% of divorced Black fathers and 45% of divorced white fathers are deadbeat dads, and, in the process, are doing irreparable damage to their children. Mr. Blow lists his source as “Charting Parenthood: A Statistical Portrait of Fathers and Mothers in America”, Child Trends, 2002.

Blogs such as that of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights write that they are posting an article that Kathleen Parker wrote in The Orlando Sentinel, Jan 24 1999. According to that blog, Ms. Parker obtained the statistic from the U.S. Census bureau that only 10% of all divorced fathers are deadbeat dads. If we limit the term ‘deadbeat’ to only those fathers who pay nothing, excluding those who manage to make a partial (even a miniscule payment), Mr. Blow says that the numbers are 20% of divorced white fathers and 42% of divorced Black fathers.

There seems to be a disconnect here, and the disconnect would appear, prima facie, to be in Mr. Blow’s favour, since the Census Bureau does not seem to have any easily obtainable data on child support payments. I was only able to obtain statistics on deadbeat dads from Child Trends, and they support Mr. Blow.

This reminds me of the old story that, if one puts a frog into hot water, the frog will jump out, but if one puts the frog into cold water and heats it gradually, the frog won’t notice and will cook up into a nice lunch. Frogs are actually too smart for that, but American men aren’t.

Before Clinton, there was AFDC, which officially stood, in an Orwellian fashion, for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In fact, it was Aid for Single Females with Dependent Children, with an emphasis on single. A more accurate title would have been, Tax on Poor Families, or Act to Discourage Poor Families.

Families headed by two parents with meagre salaries were eligible for food vouchers.

However, single mothers were not only eligible for food vouchers, but were also eligible for medical vouchers, rent vouchers, and a small cash payment. For the 10% of men with the lowest salaries, their families would have much more total benefits from AFDC, provided the men were absent. The most responsible of these fathers found themselves accommodation elsewhere, and tried to send cash and to see their children if possible but there was a risk: if a man was around or sending money, the woman was not eligible for AFDC. Visiting his children or sending them money risked their welfare. The caseworkers were required to inspect regularly, and to terminate AFDC benefits if they found evidence of a man around, as in men's clothing or other artefacts in the apartment provided to the single mother and children. And, of course, the mother had to say the father had abandoned the family, or she would not be eligible for AFDC.

And, of course, this system affected a much larger percentage of Blacks than whites.

Conservatives hated AFDC, giving money to women for having children out of wedlock, especially Black women.

Reagan, back in the mid-‘80s when the US did not have the technology to enforce the law, signed a bill requiring fathers to pay 100% of the AFDC payments, beginning in 1995. The fathers of AFDC children, for the most part, did not earn 100% of the AFDC payments, but Clinton signed the enabling legislation, and abolished AFDC.

Under the new law, women who had been collecting AFDC, or who wished to apply for AFDC, must name the father or fathers of their children. A judge must then set the amount the fathers have to pay, based on state guidelines, guidelines that vary widely from state to state. In some states, the judges must asses a portion of the father’s pay check. In other states, the guidelines require the judge to award at least as much as the former AFDC payment, and also must require the father to reimburse the government for all AFDC monies already expended.

So, in 1996, even though 100% of the awards were garnished from the fathers’ salaries by the tax assessors, 45% of white fathers and 60% of Black fathers still refused to pay the full amount. How could they refuse? Only by failing to earn as much as the judge awarded. The tax authority could only take whichever was less, the full amount of tax plus the support awarded by the court, or 100% of the man's pay.

Since garnishing their pay had been insufficient, in 1998 Clinton made it a felony to earn less than the full amount of the award, an act wildly popular with liberals, conservatives, and the mainstream press. But even throwing more than 10% of divorced fathers in jail hasn’t been enough to get them to pay the full award, so clearly, much harsher methods are needed. Waterboarding, perhaps?

The other part of the myth is that many fathers run off, abandoning their children, and never make an effort to see them. This ignores the fact that, in many jurisdictions, the woman receives a much larger cash award in a divorce if she alleges abuse.

In some courts, the abuse must be proven, and the woman will be punished for perjury if she makes such allegations without any evidence. However, in other jurisdictions, it is believed (and I have personally observed judges act on this belief in several states, including Arkansas and West Virginia), that most men know how to abuse their women and children in ways that leave absolutely no proof or evidence of any kind, and the criminal justice system is helpless and unable to bring these demons (and I am not being figurative when I write ‘demons’) to justice. The Divorce Courts have no such limitations, but can find these men guilty of demonic abuse that left no evidence, and issue restraining orders that the man must never see his children again, issued along with (to be fair) a visitation order for bi-weekly visits. Should the man fail to exercise his visitation rights, he will be punished. Should he attempt to exercise his visitation rights, he is in violation of the restraining order, and will be punished. Since these men are preternatural demons, such punishment only seems fair.

And it's their own neglect if these fathers decide not to incur immediate imprisonment by violating the restraining order, even though their ex wives would have dialed 911 and ensured that they never saw their children. They still should have tried, even if it meant going to jail for life, and even though they would never have succeeded in seeing their children. But most don't, instead using the restraining order as an excuse not to wage futile attempts to see their children.

Divorce, American Style: A Perfect Storm

In the UK, John Mortimer wrote a book, Felix in the Underworld. It was about the Labour policy that abolished the UK equivalent of AFDC. Instead of the government providing for single mothers with dependent children, no payments would be made unless the woman named the father. Once she'd named the father, the payments would be collected from the named father. As Mortimer wrote, there was absolutely no need for the woman to name the biological father, as long as she named some male who would be responsible to make the payments and largely allow the government to abolish government payments to women with dependent children, thereby saving the taxpayers money.

Clinton read about the UK system, and, as a legacy passed in his last year in office, decided to press for adoption of this system in the US. He succeeded at the Federal level.

The US, however, is a Federal system, unlike the UK. In 38 states, no payments can be required of the father after the children are 18. In the other states, which include Clinton's Arkansas, the support, once ordered, can never be reduced for any reason. In Arkansas (and my state) fathers of 30 year old children are still paying.

In many (but certainly not all) states, the courts watch Lifetime television. On Lifetime, viciously beaten women have no recourse to the criminal justice system.

This myth appears in most published novels. Grisham wrote that most judges refuse to get involved when a man beats his wife or girlfriend. Dick Francis wrote that, when a man beats his wife, the case does not come to trial until after all wounds have healed, and the defence lawyer says, 'M'Lud, the prosecutor says this man beat this woman. Does M'Lud see any evidence of this abuse?' The jury sees no such evidence, and finds the guilty man innocent.

In real life, I went with a police patrol called by a neighbour. 'I heard hitting and screaming,' said the neighbour. The constable, who had a warrant, demanded access to the apartment inside which the fight had been heard. He saw a woman with abrasions, cuts, and bruises who said, 'I fell down the steps. My husband isn't home now.' The constable forced his way in, and found the husband cowering in a closet. The wife was photographed. At the trial, she was not called by the prosecution, who used the photographs and the testimony of the neighbour to get a conviction.

But real life never appears in any Lifetime 'documentary' about domestic abuse, or in any novel.

So the Divorce Court is advised to remedy the deficiencies of the Criminal Courts in the US, and to demand that, if accused of abuse, the man named as father pay at least 140% of his income.

So my judge, hearing that my wife said she was viciously abused, but the police would not help, found me guilty of 'vicious, bizarre, occult abuse.' He said that I had used occult means to beat my wife and children almost to death, but then used occult methods to conceal such abuse from the police.

Under the Clinton law, I cannot ask another judge to review the case.

If I do not give my ex the 200% of my assets and income as I was sentenced, I must go to gaol for life without the possibility of parole.

Before Clinton, most men in states that demanded more than 100% of their income left the state where they were convicted. The conviction was strictly civil, not criminal, and was therefore not extraditable. The few fools who remained in the state where they were divorced were gaoled, then, since the judge didn't want to be responsible for the costs of the incarceration of these men, the judge would set up some delayed schedule of support payments, forgive the unpayable payments, and, after a few weeks in gaol, release the man named as father. Usually, these fools figured out that they had to leave the state where they were divorced. Some went to judges in other states and got a more reasonable settlement.

Clinton changed all that. 1) Not one penny may be forgiven. 2) Not one penny may be re-scheduled. 3) Once the woman has chosen a court, no other court may hear the case. 4) Crossing state lines after a divorce is a Federal offence for the man (if the women still feels threatened after the divorce, she is allowed and strongly encouraged to leave the state).

So I left. Not just my state, but the US. Only, I had a question, and, when I went to ask, the embassy shredded my passport.

So now I am a mojado in this country, with no visa, no passport, no papers if any kind.

Which is highly illegal, and I have no idea what I can do.

I went to a local lawyer who took $450 from me. I said, 'What is your advice?'

'We are required by law to turn you in, but we don't want to hurt our clients, so we have to ask that you never come by or call us again, and we won't tell anyone here about you.'

So I just have to hope I'm not asked for my papers.

How I became a fugitive

The New York Times reports that 48% of divorced men are deadbeats. In spite of the fact that divorced men have their salaries garnished at source by the IRS. So, in fact, the deadbeats have all been ordered to pay more alimony than their take-home pay.

I was one of those deadbeats.

Where I was divorced, the guidelines were (are) that, if the wife claims abuse, the court should sentence the husband to life without the possibility of parole.

My wife said that she couldn't get any satisfaction from the criminal justice system, since they could find absolutely no evidence of abuse.

My judge (and lawyer) who both watch The Lifetime Channel, watch a movie every night where the woman can't get any help from the criminal justice system. The poor woman's TV husband, every night, manages to inflict compound fractures, but, when the cops arrive and take the woman to the hospital, the abuser has used sorcery, so the TV doctors can't find any evidence of abuse, and, without evidence, the criminal justice system can't do anything. This cannot happen in real life, but real life is alien to The Lifetime Channel. And to Family Law Court.

As far as Family Law Court is concerned, the only solution is the one used in Salem, MA. Or Loudun, Fr.

The Family Justice guideline is incarceration without the possibility of parole for any man accused of abuse where there is absolutely no criminal evidence of abuse, since that is a priori evidence of sorcery. The Family Justice guideline is thwarted by the stupid modern laws which prohibit burning at the stake for men who are clearly guilty by virtue of the fact that there is no conventional evidence of any kind against them, so, sadly, the courts have to settle for sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

In September, 2000, I was in arrears enough that, under the Clinton Law, the feds came to deport me back to the state where I was divorced, where I would be incarcerated for life, or until I could pay 200% of my take-home pay.

So I left the US for the ME.

And so, now, I'm FugitiveME.