|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
They're Not All 'Deadbeat Dads'
| Article
# : |
11437 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
4 / 1994 |
1,946 Words |
| Author
: |
Jenifer Rachel
Jenifer Rachel is a free-lance writer living in Helendale,
California. |
Media hype continues to unduly propagate images of stereotypical "deadbeat dads": wealthy men who leave poverty-stricken children with no means of support. Policymakers and special-interest groups perpetuate their causes by providing the media with inaccurate data. Child support is no longer strictly for children; states are profiting from child-support collections while children remain in poverty. Support awards are skyrocketing; visitation rights are not enforced; and male custody is virtually unattainable, leaving man's primary role as a cash donor. The Clinton administration has turned a deaf ear to over 16 million fathers who live in households without their children while responding to pressure from lobbyists on the other side of the fence.
In 1988 the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) passed the Family Support Act (FSA) requiring states to comply with federal child support guidelines. As a result, stringent enforcement techniques allow government to intrude on the lives of male citizens with the implementation of wage assignments, tax-refund intercepts, liens, and interest penalties on arrearages.
Current policy is designed to allow children to remain at the same economic levels they enjoyed before their parents were divorced, placing unrealistic demands on noncustodial parents. In today's society, men bear the brunt of responsibility for maintaining children's economic lifestyles, and additional pressure arises when the custodial mother is a "deadbeat." When a mother cannot work, or chooses not to, the father and taxpayers are required to pay the entire bill.
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
"Collecting child support is the cornerstone of both federal and state deliberations on welfare reform," according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). It admits, however, that "although the child-support program is generally attached to a social welfare agency, legislators increasingly treat child support in the same fashion as other state revenue-collection agencies." San Bernardino District Attorney Dennis Kottmeier states, "The significance of child support is that it's a moneymaker."
States gain because the federal government pays 66 percent of state and local administrative costs for services to those on Aid to Families with Dependant Children (AFDC). In addition to federal reimbursement for administrative costs, states also receive federal incentive payments. Simply put, the more child support a state
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
