http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/new...9d193658582e5e4c7894

The basic premise of the show is to guilt/shame the deadbeat dad into paying his child support. Based on this description, I would say it might be a good show. Now, what if the tables were turned, where the mother is the deadbeat? Would the show even make it this far in talks to become a show? I don't know.

I would say that this show is a good show, based on my experience with seeing how a family member has been treated by her ex. The guy buys a big screen TV, gets tattoos, collects high-priced action figures (collector series stuff), etc, while his ex skims by. The courts have let her down several times. The father (not a Dad by any means) had a warrant issued for his arrest for not paying. He went to the court house (or wherever it is to pay) and paid $5 dollars toward the debt. The warrant was taken off.

I'm interested in seeing what this show will actually do for the women who are affected.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Cline:
Now, what if the tables were turned, where the mother is the deadbeat? Would the show even make it this far in talks to become a show?

Probably not... Dad bashing is still very popular, and lucrative, for single females with children and the MSM.

During the Clinton administration "Deadbeat Dads" became the cause du jour, largely in response to Feminist lobbying. The Congress enacted very strident laws about collecting arrears child support, and created the ARISA (sp?) system whereby every State is obliged to collect support for another State.

Originally, Clinton's new rules made it impossible to get a license of ANY kind (including drivers, real estate, law and even hunting-fishing for chrissakes!) while owing arrears without paying the arrears off in full. That ended up driving a lot of truly poor Dads into the underground economy, and did not result in a higher percentage of collections. So, after a few years, they changed the law again so that a Dad could pay off some portion of the debt and be free to go on with their lives.

Those new laws also put in place something called "imputed income", which means that the child support enforcement bureau is allowed to calculate Dad's income of today (and therefore what his support amount should be) based upon what THEY think he SHOULD be able to earn... regardless of lay-offs, downsizing or anything else out of the control of the father.

Efforts made by Dads to offset some of the harshness by making it mandatory for child custody to be shared, were defeated by Feminists. At that time, 80% of custody was always awarded to the mothers... so, they were highly motivated to ask for and receive it. I don't know what the percentage is these days... it might have changed slightly for the better.

Back then, too, almost every daytime talk show would have at least one program on Deadbeat Dads every week, without fail... and some of them had it on every damn day. In recent years there has finally been some TV interest in trapping females who have wrongly accused males of fatherhood too, and it is "surprising" how much of the time that actually happens!

Under the Clinton regime other weird new rules went into effect as well. For example, the parents and even grandparents of a Dad could be made to pay the support. Some men who were NOT the biological father found themselves being dinged for support after divorce simply because they had cared for the woman's kids during a marriage, or EVEN during a live-in relationship. When the Dad might move to another State, then that State would come after the money but would not necessarily tell the original State (where the kid was living) that they were doing so or had been collecting on the arrears. So, if and when the debt got paid off, the Dad would have to clear his name in BOTH States... which was not easy to accomplish. In other words, the States did not share information about the cases, at all. The Dad could be cleared in his home State, and arrested on an arrears warrant if stopped for a traffic violation in the kid's home state... which is why we see so many high speed cop chases where the man says he had a support warrant out.

The main reason many Dads did not pay their support, other than being negligent or not having any money, was because the mothers habitually violate visitation orders. The government could care less. Minnesota was an exception... they made the mother's receiving of support contingent on her abiding by the visitation agreements. Guess what happened... collection of support arrears went up by 60% in one year and stayed high afterward.

So... although it's sensationalistic, such programs on TV are mostly there to make money from sadistic viewers who enjoy seeing other people suffer and are totally ignorant of how fascist the child support system often actually is... in my opinion.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Michael S. Bell,

I know a woman who constantly complains about her x not paying his support money and how hard a time she is having because of it. One day last year while my family was having an unusually hard time making ends meet she bought something completely un-necessary in front of me that I would have liked getting for my family. It cost her $800. I can't be more specific as she would know I was talking about her if she read this. My point is that if you are going to complain about how little money you have and constantly complain about your x paying his child support don't spend frivolous money in front of someone that can't afford to do the same or just don't complain around them.

Andy, I totally agree with you. If you bitch about not getting any money from your ex, then maybe you need to not spend as much on crap. That money could be used for better purposes, like your kids.

Michael, as to the underground economy, I found out that this father, when his wages started to get garnished, had his employer pay him through his girlfriend's checks. That way, his money wasn't taken. I can't believe the employer agreed to do it, but he did so. Employers who do something like that need to be checked into as well. Another thing this guy would do, was when his wages started getting garnished, he would quit the job to work someplace else until the pay started getting hit again.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Cline:
Michael, as to the underground economy, I found out that this father, when his wages started to get garnished, had his employer pay him through his girlfriend's checks. That way, his money wasn't taken. I can't believe the employer agreed to do it, but he did so. Employers who do something like that need to be checked into as well. Another thing this guy would do, was when his wages started getting garnished, he would quit the job to work someplace else until the pay started getting hit again.

I'm sure that sort of thing did happen, with alarming frequency.

However, more of the time the simple inability to obtain a driver's license, or a contractor's license etc. fundamentally destroyed many many mens' ability to make ANY kind of a living at all. A lot of them ended up doing handyman work cash basis, or even illicit drug sales and the like, just to get by... which went on until the govt changed their law so that a partial payment of arrears could free up the licensing issues. The only alternative was to keep driving without a license or insurance, never have a bank account and never have ANYTHING official in their own name.

And, I was VERY surprised in my research to see how often it was that the most frequent reason men gave for failing to pay their support money was that the mothers violated visitation agreements... that simple little thing is pretty much all the guys really felt they HAD to have to make it worthwhile.

In point of truth, most men would/will consistently buy food and clothes, give school money or special classes fees and of course holiday gifts to their kids... as well as to include them on their employee health insurance and the like... none of which gets counted against arrears if the Dad simply cannot afford the court ordered payments.

Court ordered payments are based on net income compared with a very limited set of allowable gross expenses, as well. Which, of course, means that actual cash available for anything is considerably less than total cost of living. And, when imputed income takes effect, then the whole thing comes to pieces because the court ALWAYS decides the rate of payment based on the highest earnings.

The other major reason, honest or not, given for failure to pay was that the mother used her money for drugs and booze... and I suppose that is true some of the time. But again, even though doing so would make the mother "unfit" to maintain custody, if the father did not have a share of custody then he was totally helpless... with about as much authority or right to have a say so over his children as the guy behind the counter at a Quik Stop.

Things have improved a bit since the 1990s, but not a helluva lot.

I did a bunch of research on this whole topic years ago with one of my uncles who retired from Family Support/Social Services.

I'm not disagreeing with you Michael. I was just pointing out one of the ways this particular father tried to stop making payments.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Cline:
I'm not disagreeing with you Michael. I was just pointing out one of the ways this particular father tried to stop making payments.

I realize that, Kevin... and do understand what you wrote. It's very important for people to know that there WERE shenanigans and lies told & done to get out of paying legitimate support.

The topic is so huge really... I had no idea of it's depth and breadth until my uncle asked me to look into it with him.

I shudder to think of another TV program that will, judging from the customary thoughtlessness of so many people, further demonize males, men or fathers.

I was a single parent in the 80's and 90's and recieved nothing. It was for the better.

Coincidentally... a big banner ad popped up above this thread last time I looked at responses... advertising legal services (or something) aimed at helping "you get all the child support you deserve."

How amazingly appropriate and magical, is it not?

Kinda says a little something special about what the true aim of the child support enforcement industry actually has been.

quote:

if the Dad simply cannot afford the court ordered payments.

Michael, I'm sure you have some personal experience with this given the amount of material you posted. But as you are aware, if a father's financial circumstances change he can appeal to the court to have his child support payments adjusted. And his licenses/privileges should not be in jeopardy UNLESS he simply doesn't pay and does not make arrangements with the court. Even before the courts allowed partial payments, the main reason guys got in trouble is they got laid off or their income changed--and they simply stopped paying rather than notify the court.

The other reasons you mentioned that fathers give for not paying such as visitation issues or substance abuse by the mother are simply not valid excuses. If there are visitation problems the father needs to take it to the court--and he has a better chance of being remedied by the court if he isn't refusing to pay court-ordered support. If the mother is using drugs he needs to bring it to the attention of the police and DFS--not decide arbitrarily to withhold payment in an effort to solve the problem.

Believe it or not, feminists and TV shows and the "child support industry" did not invent deadbeat dads. I'd be happy to introduce you to a lady living in Joplin MO. whose ex-soldier ex-husband walked out leaving her with 7 kids and never paid a dime of child support. I can introduce you to a Doctor who pays $60K a year to send his kids to private school, but paid lawyers to be sure his wife got the minimum amount of alimony possible. I have a cousin whose ex went through elaborate efforts to hide income just to deny her and their two kids money he resented having to pay--until the IRS nailed him. And that's really the issue for most dads who gripe about child support and the deadbeat dad laws. They resent having to pay for something they no longer own outright.

Cite all the examples anyone cares to cite... this thread began with yet another television program specifically intended to "shame" fathers into paying child support.

I object to that intent, and state again that such efforts have not yielded increased payment of support due, nor do they treat fairly of the uncountable number of fathers who handle this obligation properly, nor do they account for the very large number of female parents who are every bit as negligent as anyone else.

So, if the intention is to make moral fodder of men by means of additional public humiliation, again... then my point in saying what has been said is merely to make clear that there is a whole other side to the issue which too seldom is taken into account, AND, if the Child Support Enforcement industry truly wants to help support children then it would be advisable for them to do some other things which would treat the fathers more justly.

Everyone knows that there are parents who would go to any lengths to avoid taking care of their kids. So?

What about the rest of us... how about some programs that speak to the extreme sacrifices most parents make to look after their offspring, or maybe even including some exposure of the utter dead-brained brutality of the Child Support Enforcement cartel. How about making receipt of support money being made contingent upon the custodial parent strictly abiding by visitation agreements?

Michael, the court views visitation and child support as separate issues, and rightly so. Many States include a proviso that visitation cannot be denied solely based on non-payment of support--including alimony.

As for the "moral fodder" remark--it is more like "media fodder". This type of thing is always grist for the mills, and as a journalism professor once pointed out in a class I remember , the media reports on the minister who has an affair with the choir director and absconds with church funds rather than the 40 year faithful servant who tends his flock. That's because the former is out of the ordinary and therefore newsworthy, like "man bites dog."

But your use of "Child Support Enforcement cartel" is another time-honored media device. It's called hyperbole. No such "cartel" exists, and while your sympathies clearly lean toward the side of fathers whom you feel have been treated unjustly, remember there are two or more sides to every story. If people behaved well at all times and honored their commitments, none of this would be an issue.

This reasoning you are using is precisely why there IS a cartel, or industry, surrounding child support enforcement. The origin, again, of this thread was creation of a commercial television program ("entertainment" mind you) intended to do what?

Please understand that I am fully aware of what the law is SUPPOSED to do, and am trying this one more time to make others aware of what it ACTUALLY accomplishes as things now stand.

You need not answer this question in public (for one thing, I don't care to know the answer), but have YOU ever had any direct experience with being in arrears for child support?

Beyond that, your patronizing and condescending attitude about my contribution to this exchange is not appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Pete Kirkman:
Michael, the court views visitation and child support as separate issues, and rightly so. Many States include a proviso that visitation cannot be denied solely based on non-payment of support--including alimony.

As for the "moral fodder" remark--it is more like "media fodder". This type of thing is always grist for the mills, and as a journalism professor once pointed out in a class I remember , the media reports on the minister who has an affair with the choir director and absconds with church funds rather than the 40 year faithful servant who tends his flock. That's because the former is out of the ordinary and therefore newsworthy, like "man bites dog."

But your use of "Child Support Enforcement cartel" is another time-honored media device. It's called hyperbole. No such "cartel" exists, and while your sympathies clearly lean toward the side of fathers whom you feel have been treated unjustly, remember there are two or more sides to every story. If people behaved well at all times and honored their commitments, none of this would be an issue.

quote:

Beyond that, your patronizing and condescending attitude about my contribution to this exchange is not appreciated.

Let me see if I can make this clear to you Michael. I do agree with some of your posts. I think you are probably a reasonable, intelligent guy, and that we would chat fine in person even if we disagree on a number of issues. But if you come on this forum and post anything , you've opened the door for responses--whether you "appreciate" it or not, and guess what--you aren't entitled to God status to have your every statement accepted as gospel. And you are a fine one to talk about condescension:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael S. Bell:
You need not answer this question in public (for one thing, I don't care to know the answer )

So don't talk to me about condescension, Mr. Bell. If you want to have a civil discourse, fine. If you want to ignore me--feel free. I will continue to post what I choose when I choose. And my standard reply to anyone who has a problem with that is GFY.

My child gets a whopping $168 a month for her support from her father. Child Support is based on our combined income. My income being the greater of the two makes my percentage of child support greater than his. They do send a letter approx. every 3 years if you wish to modify the order based on changes in income. My ex's refusal to provide any support for our child during the seperation and divorce (2 years) cost him Joint Physical Custody.
If anything the show/program could provide some insight into what NOT to do and why. Who knows, to the more intelligent person it may even prove to be a nice form of birth control (deterrent).
Do you think there is a relation between the option of Child Support or Abortion in the mind of the father? I don't know for certian but I'll bet there is in some cases.