How to Enforce Parenting Skills Through Fear and Punishment

For 5 long years, Steve Barreras fought with the family law court systems, providing evidence that supported his case (only to have this evidence ignored). For 5 long years, Steve paid his court-obligated child support for a child that didn't even exist!

In 2005, Barreras' persistence finally paid off, and ex-wife Viola Trevino was ordered to bring her daughter into court. Under pressure to produce this fictional child, Trevino actually kidnapped a little girl and brought her into the court room.

Barreras was granted a lawsuit for over $20,000 which he had paid in child support and this story received its 5 minutes of fame in the news (as well it should.)

However there have been no changes made since this situation to repair a severely flawed judicial system regarding child support enforcement.

In fact, the issue of men being abused by strict child support enforcement laws is not a new story. In 1990, Bobby Sherill was released as an Iraqi hostage, and finally returned home to his family after suffering 5 long years of being a POW.

The next night, Sherill was greeted with handcuffs and arrested for owing child support arrears.

Also in 1990, Clarence Bradley was exonerated after 10 years of wrongful imprisonment and when he attempted to sue the state for the time spent in prison, the state replied with a $50,000 bill in unpaid child support ... yes, from the time he wrongfully spent in prison.

To this day, hundreds of thousands of fathers are obligated to pay a percentage of their income, after state and federal taxes. A shocking percentage of this include men who are disabled, unemployed, incarcerated, in a war, or even proven through DNA to not be the father.

While there seems to be a great political pressure and social exposure to crack down on those "dirt bags" who do not pay their child support... there is very little exposure to the real reasons why these obligations are not being met.

Deadbeat Dads

A deadbeat dad is a father who avoids the financial and emotional responsibility of his child or children.

A deadbeat dad moves around frequently, switches jobs frequently, and sometimes even works under the table in an effort to deliberately avoid paying court obligated child support.

Of the fathers who do fit the stereotype of a man who purposely and willingly dodge and avoid any and all responsibilities associated with being a father... the percentage is very, very low.

As for the rest, the leading reason for not paying obligated child support is not unwillingness but is an inability to pay what is expected of them.

Support Guidelines

A standard child support order for a man with one child is to pay 20% of his income, after state and federal taxes, for that child. The maximum amount a man can be legally obligated to pay for child support is actually 60% of his income.

However, if a man does have a second family than the maximum he is required to pay for his child support is only 50%, but this "cap" is raised by 5% if a man is in arrears (has not paid support) for 12 weeks or more.

Arrears...

Arrears, or child support debt... is very serious business.

According to the Bradley Amendment enacted in 1986, arrears (or child support debt) may not be decreased or modified in any way for any reason.

If a man files bankruptcy, he still owes.

If a man suffers a decrease in income or loss of unemployment, he is still bound to the debt.

If a man is hospitalized or becomes disabled... you guessed it... he still owes that money. It gets even worse.

A man who is sent to prison, yes he still owes the Bradley debt (child support arrears) but what about if a man is proven to not be the father of the child or if a man dies? He is still responsible for that debt... no matter what.

Arrears occur when child support is not paid, and any man who owes arrears is regarded as a deadbeat because he does not pay his child support. He must be a bad father. Therefore, actions are being taken to make sure that these deadbeat dads are punished.

Punishment for Falling into Arrears

Interception of your taxes

Treated as a low life

Suspension of a license, making it almost impossible to find new work

Denial of a passport

6 months in jail...

"Well these people deserve it for not owning up to their responsibilities!"

Being a parent does require providing children with a balance of emotional and financial support.

A middle class family balances the needs of their children according to what is available. If either parent loses a job, then a budget is adjusted accordingly to maintain a balance. It is very rare in a family situation for the amount of money spent on a child to take priority over the money spent on bills such as utility or rent.

However, should the family separate... now the two individual incomes are separated into two individual budgets with two individual sets of bills.

The custody and visitation arrangement of any children involved are completely irrelevant in a child support court order... and assuming the mother is the custodial guardian this makes the father responsible for providing his ex wife with up to 60% of his income.

Naturally, it is impossible for a single man to live on any remaining income, so it is very common for somebody in this situation to encounter more losses. If you can not afford the gas to get to work, you are likely to lose your job. If you lose your job, you will fall behind on child support. (Never mind losing your home because that's not what will put you in jail.)

Luckily, a father does have the right to request a modification of a child support order if he has encountered a job loss or decrease in income.

It takes several weeks for the court date to be set, and during the waiting time (which could be months) he is legally required to continue paying the support as ordered.

Basically, it is far easier to fall into arrears with child support obligations than it is to keep up with the payments.

Those who are able to stay current with support are usually earning a far more substantial income.

A majority of Americans are struggling to survive from one paycheck to the next. This includes the majority of noncustodial parents, forced to work a second (and sometimes even third) job just to have the same amount of money for their selves as another struggling individual who is only working one job.

The gap in financial responsibility towards a child between parents who are together and parents who are not together is just one of the many flaws in a monetary focused family law system.

To say that a man deserves to lose his license, socially humiliated and ostracized, or thrown in jail because he has not paid child support is very ignorant.

But it is possible that if the guidelines of financial obligation by the noncustodial parent were set at a more realistic and reasonable standard; that the situation of a single mom raising her children without any help from the absent parent would not be so common.

Another thing to consider, regarding the flaw of a gap in child related financial obligations between parents who are together and parents who are not: is the emotion involved in the relationship between parents.

While it may seem irrelevant for the welfare of a child, this is giving far too much credit to the moral responsibility of individuals who are wounded emotionally by a failed relationship. What happens when you tell a woman she is entitled to the money of a man she is upset with?

This simple little bit of control that empowers vindictive women to seek revenge is strengthened by another flaw in the federal and state laws of child support enforcement.

Maternal Bias

The phrase "deadbeat dads" is used to further humiliate any man who is unable to keep up with child support payments. But what about "deadbeat moms"...

There are mothers out there who behave in the way that a real deadbeat father would, by walking away from a child and showing no involvement at all in that child's life.

If a woman is brought into court for child support, it is very rare that woman is held to the same standards of financial obligation as a man.

Yet because it is rare for a father to be granted the custody of his children in a family law courtroom without hard evidence proving a mother is unfit to be a guardian, it is only obvious why the term "deadbeat" is often a male oriented term.

A deadbeat is a noncustodial parent, unless they can keep the custodial parent happy.

However, family law situations are often bias from the beginning, with the idea that women are hardworking moms and men need to pay for the right to be called a dad.

What about the moms who only want custody of the children because it gives them "free money" or the moms who purposely pursue unstable living conditions; because it entitles them to even more money?

If morality and law are two separate matters, fine.

Child support enforcement exists to punish irresponsible fathers who ditch their children and stick Mom with the bill. Does it work?

Absolutely not!

Child Support Enforcement

The biggest flaw of all with child support enforcement is all in the name.

"But it's for the child..."

Child support enforcement could not possibly exist to enhance the well being of a child.

If this was the purpose, then why are so many children denied visitation from a parent because he's fallen behind... and why is this behavior kept separate from child support hearings?

If child support really did exist for the child, then the order would be based on child related expenses and not the income of a noncustodial parent. Is one child worth only $20 a month while another is worth $2000 a month?

If child support orders are based on income as a way to provide an "equal standard of living from either parent," then why would a woman who earns $150k a year need more money from a man who earns less than $20k a year, for the "well being" of her child?

Where is the equality again?

There is absolutely no way that a child support enforcement system will ever work to enhance the well being of a child, but it has proven over time that child support enforcement is actually destructive to the well being of a child.

Children become pawns in the game of family law. Not all women are as manipulative and vindictive as others, but even a woman with values may act out of line with her child's well being as a direct result of believing the lie that a man is not a good father if he doesn't pay her bills.

Furthermore, if child support really was indeed for a child then none of the following statements would not be true.

(1) It is irrelevant how the custodial parent spends their child support money. (Even if she uses it on drugs or frivolous luxuries, the father is required to pay while the child continues to live in an unhealthy situation.)

(2) Visitation and custody are separate issues. (So a father who supports his children every weekend and all summer long is still required to pay 'child' support to the mother, in addition to any financial support he pays directly to the child's care while in his custody.)

(3) "Add-ons" are additional expenses beyond the basic child support order, which are expected to be split 50/50 between parents, and include but are not limited to child related expenses such as education, child care, and medical expenses. So what is the basic child support order for again?

(4) A man can lose his license, be denied a passport, or even go to jail for not paying child support obligations. There is no consequence for a father who does not visit or call his children or is not emotionally supportive of his children... yet there is harsh punishment for not being financially supportive. Which type of supportive is more important for the well being of a child again?

This of course brings me to the second flaw in the term "child support enforcement."

"Pay, or else..."

When a child is born, there are no doctors or law officers watching closely to make sure that child will embraced warmly, welcomed to the world by loving arms. It just happens.

What would happen if there was an authoritative figure standing over as you birth a child, holding a gun to your head and demanding that you "love this child" or you will be arrested for being a bad person?

Perhaps your natural reaction of fear would over ride the pre existing natural reaction to do exactly what you are being commanded to do?

This scenario would never happen, of course, but a very similar situation is currently taking place right to over 50% of the fathers in America.

How can you enforce a man to be a dad?

How can you tell that man what being a good dad is?

If your idea of being a good dad is to pay money, and you enforce this concept... then how can anybody meet those standards?

Being a good dad is being a responsible man.

Be an active part of your child's life.

Do what you can to help with any financial burdens, but more importantly just be there to help with any discipline, praise, and other valuable tools that both parents are necessary for providing a child with.

Being a good mom is knowing the difference between what family law says your child needs, and what you know your child needs.

For an example of a financially responsible mother; if you decide your child should only wear brand name clothes then you recognize this decision is at your own expense and is not an obligation to the other parent.

Being a responsible mother means you do not take money for your child that you do not need for that child.

A noncustodial parent should help with 50% of child related expenses that are necessary for that child's well being.

A single woman should be held responsible for her own rent and any other bills that would exist if there were no children present. Family law judges may even refuse to lower an obligation when you say "I don't need that much" but it is perfectly okay to return any hard earned money that is not needed (to cover a noncustodial portion of child related expenses) back to the rightful owner.

The most important thing that a good mother does is recognize that: when a man wants to be a part of his child's life, he is a good father. Regardless of what child support enforcement says... this is all you should expect from your child's dad.

Sources:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/mar06/06-03-01.html
http://www.truveo.com/KRQE-News-13-Steve-Barreras-wins-in-Phantom-Baby/id/2106653907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Brandley