Posted on 02/22/2005 9:50:39 AM PST by jasoncann
Donald Gardner owes $119,846 in back child support to his former wife, but there is little chance he will pay it soon - or ever.
After failing to pay support for his two children for much of the early 1990's because he felt the payments were too high, Mr. Gardner broke 27 bones in a car accident in 1997. Being in and out of hospitals for three years left him penniless, and when he tried to return to work he found that the state had suspended his driver's license because of his accumulated child support debt.
That prevented him from going back to work as an interstate truck driver.
"I've decided that I'd like to get this behind me and pay the support," said Mr. Gardner, 47, who now lives in a homeless shelter in Harlem, "but if I can't drive I can't pay. It is like a Catch-22."
Everybody loves to hate the so-called deadbeat dads. After a spate of press accounts of a few flagrant shirkers in the mid-1990's, civic fury rose to a boil. Legislators in many states across the country passed tough measures that allowed for, among other things, revocation of any state license and direct access to bank accounts of men not meeting their payments. Child support collections skyrocketed.
But because the laws made little effort to differentiate between the wealthy and the out-of-work and incarcerated, the laws have produced consequences for poor men that are vexing local and national policy makers.
Around the country, child support arrears have been piling up at a staggering rate since the enactment of these laws. A decade ago the federal government said fathers owed $31 billion in back child support; as of 2003, the last year for which data was available, the total had more than triple that to reach $96 billion. Changes in reporting may account for a portion of the increase.
About 70 percent of the debt is owed by men who earn $10,000 a year or less, or have no recorded wage earnings at all, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Less than 4 percent is owed by men with incomes of more than $40,000.
And the poorer men are getting caught in a vicious circle. Their debts have become obstacles to getting licenses for jobs to help them produce wages to pay down the debts.
Recent research by the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, found that aggressive collection of debts played a crucial role in pushing low-income black men ages 25 to 34 out of lawful employment, the opposite effect policy makers might have desired.
"Child support enforcement has a lot of powerful tools at its disposal and tends to assume the ability of the men to pay," said Elaine Sorensen, a senior researcher at the Urban Institute. "But sometimes men can't pay because they are in prison or don't have the money. Child support policies need to be more flexible to distinguish between those who won't pay and those who can't."
New York has gentler policies than many states in demanding child support from poor men. The state allows men to go to court when child support is first determined, offer tax records showing that they have no income and no assets, and receive a cap of $500 on the total amount they can owe. Men who apply to the court after the arrears have started adding up can get their monthly payments reduced to as little as $25.
But reductions are not automatic. They are largely at the discretion of the family court magistrate, and can take months to put in place even when they are granted.
Many states do not allow judges leeway, automatically assigning men a child support figure equal to the amount the mother may receive from welfare, or hundreds a month - regardless of ability to pay. That is the case in Texas, where unpaid child support amounts have grown by $2.5 billion in the last four years, to $9.1 billion. In California, where interest is charged on support owed, amounts have grown to $18.4 billion.
But even in a system like New York's, so few low-income men know of the court option that many do not go to plead for leniency. Others are leery of dealing with the court system. As a result, child support owed in New York has jumped $800 million in the last five years, and at least 35 percent is owed by men with income of $12,500 or less, according to state officials.
Earlier this month Gov. George E. Pataki proposed a tax credit for parents who do not have custody of their children - mostly fathers - and who have incomes under $12,000 and who are current on their child support payments. The idea behind the credit was to reward the roughly 10,000 low-income men who are paying their support and to entice men who have ducked their responsibilities to go to court and work out a deal. But as state officials acknowledge, there are thousands of men who will not benefit because their arrears are formidable.
Policies of forgiving or reducing child support arrears are unpopular, even in New York. Governor Pataki's tax credit proposal did include a provision for suspending the collection of child support arrears for men who marry the mother of their children. But Robert Doar, commissioner of the state's Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, said that the state should not go further in reducing arrears.
Mr. Doar said that he doubted that aggressive child support collection is the primary reason that poor fathers leave the work force, noting that many low-income men without child support debt do not work legally. But he said the law had increased collections and reduced out-of-wedlock births, and had enough bend in it for those who really cannot afford to pay.
"The system is pretty forgiving to those who make an effort to pay something," Mr. Doar said, "but if they do not even make an effort to start making payments on a regular basis we will pursue child support mechanisms very aggressively. We don't want to send a signal that if you just wait long enough all will be forgiven."
Still, many of those who help poor men get back into the work force insist that the courts are not always reliable. Even when men go to court to have their payments reduced, the decisions of judges vary widely, said Bonnie Holtzman, senior manager for job development for the Doe Fund, which operates shelters and work training programs for homeless men.
Mr. Gardner, for example, said he had been to court to get his driver's license back on the condition that he started paying his former wife. But the court would not agree to the arrangement, he said, because it could not locate his wife.
"In theory you are supposed to be able to go into court and you are supposed to be able to get modifications," Ms. Holtzman said. "But in reality, there are a lot of judges who are sick and tired of dads who haven't paid child support. They don't want to hear you had a drug problem or were in prison. They just want the money and they don't even care if you can't pay it."
Uh...yeah. Tell another one.
Bottom line:
DON'T have the kids UNLESS you can afford them. Breeding is NOT a right.
Thank you for your support.
After failing to pay support for his two children for much of the early 1990's because he felt the payments were too high,
Well, there you go. You make your bed, you get to lie in it.
makes little sense to me
Another nanny state, big government FAILURE.
ding ding ding we have a winner
Amen! Sorry, but I have no compassiong for someone who chooses to not pay child support just cause they think the amount is to hight!
Clearly a winning strategy - he felt the payments were too high, so he just didn't pay. Works every time.
Men can't have kids.
"I have no compassiong for someone who chooses to not pay child support just cause they think the amount is to hight"
Ya, but it kinda sucks if you are a man and basically forced into poverty by the Femi-Nazi court sytem.
There are other jobs, you layabout good-for-nothing welching piece of feces.
So, instead of filing a motion with the court to modify the support order or paying what he could afford (the courts do look favorably on someone who at least tries to support his children), he chose to do nothing. I hope his children don't mind too much being treated like that by their own father.
Most of these men don't drop out of the work force, they drop out of the public work force and go underground.
I refuse to have children. I'll never get married again. I'll merely drift between a series of increasingly-tawdry affairs.
Life is good. :o)
This place is great. Bitch and moan about high taxes going to support other people's kids, then bitch and moan about forcing the parents to support their own kids. It's a tidy system.
ALso in NEW YORK you can go to trial for child custody, present 25 witnesses that the mother is unfit, including a 15 year history of child abuse and neglect and previous removal of her children by CPS and a hospitalization during the trial and the court will STILL give the children to the mother and nbankrupt the father and ruin the childrens financial future as well as put them living with a diagnosed psychpath where the police come constantly...
Nahh... I'm sure they only view him as wallet anyway.
I agree.......seems to me that low income men could afford a dollar two ninety eight pack of condoms. (rolls eyes)
These laws need to be changed anyways.
There are more and more cases of men having to pay child support for children that are found out to not be theirs. This is ridiculous.
The Women's rights groups in this country have used this law to ask for some of the most ridiculous things.
So? I ask the Gloria Allreds, Gloria Steinems, and others of their ilk this question:
Which are we? Are women strong or are we needy and inept?
I get so confused over which one we're supposed to be these days. Any clarification would be helpful.
I do not hold my breath waiting for an answer. I've got kids to raise.
Yep. Nothing like turning productive members of society into criminals. I would move. Period.
Yep, cash is king
Really.. there are a lot of men that are forced into a state of poverty by the courts. And their pay is garnished to such a point they can't afford food.
And here I thought a low income man could afford free condoms given at Planned Parenthood. Which totally beats three bucks. LOL!
IT'S THE MONEY, SUCKAH !!
btt
gotta go a long ways
it's reciprocal now - states turn ya in
bottom line - it's the kids that count - best to do what ya have to do before the state gets involved.
You have kids - take care of 'em
paying support hard - don't run out and have more with someone else - and then cry
OK, now factor in no-fault divorce, and an arbitrary support "award." It's not always so simple.
not only is it always Bush's fault. But it's also Men's fault. The woman can use protection as well.
I wonder if paternity fraud is an issue in this case.
Its the only Poltically Correct form of Slavery... oh wait wasn't that outlawed... silly me..
This is the key sentence in the entire story. The New York Times wants rich deadbeat dads to pay for the children of poor deadbeat dads.
Meanwhile, we're supporting his kids.
The mother could not be found. This is slavery. period.
I would go to the carribian or mexico and then beyond.
There are responsible parents, and irresponsible parents.
In my experience, the judge stated the obvious (the ex didn't bother showing up, BTW) 'He's NOT going to pay it, you know'
Yep...
1400 mile trip; $125.00
lawyer; $2,000.00
back child support; $47,000.00
NOT having that sorry SOB around?
PRICELESS!
You would be shocked to hear how many men with $100,000 a year salaries live in trailer parks because they have $2700 a month child support and $1500 in alimony.
gotta agree with you here - divorce has become too easy - like taking off a coat.
If kids are involved, it should not be so easy - without a compelling reason - like abuse/alcohol/ etc - it should not be so easy to just walk ...
many times it's because the wife has started a new relationship - where's the "best interest of the children" there? Should they be able to break up the children's home because of selfishness? Where's their responsibility to the children they have brought into the world?
and before some feminazi flames me as a woman-hater, I'm a mom of 5 and g'ma of 15 - so nah nah ;O)
Should read:
"I've decided that since you're doing an article, and there's not a snowball's chance in h311 of me being able to follow through on my statements, that I'd like to pay the support. Yeah, that's it..."
Exactly. SOME chicks lay man trap. Dump man for new boyfriend. Make old man pay for kid, even if it is not his.
Then turn these guys into slaves. here is an idea. Gardner raises the kid and the mother gets a job! With quotas and all she would have a better chance.
Thats what you got out of reading that sentence? Does the teacher know your posting from the Third Grade classroom?
This is not about taxing one to pay another, this is the same as the argument against Mandatory Minimums.(i.e. legislative meddling in JUDICIAL affairs...)
American marriage makes as much sense for a man as seeking a Saudi marriage makes for a woman.
Marriage developed problems.
Wife cheated.
Wife would not go for counseling.
Divorced.
Ex-Wife remarried military man.
He was stationed in Germany.
Courts allowed ex to take daughter to Germany.
Three years Germany then Allabama.
Four years Allabama then Arizona.
I got behind on support once for a four week period, caught up and was never late again.
Ex excluded me from most of my daughters life issues.
Courts absolutely no help.
Daughter now grown but damage to relationship done.
Don't offer comments unless you've been there!
This law was brought to the nation by former President Bill Clinton's "deadbeat dad" law -- which the feminists underwote. In CA, the state adopted a local franchise in punishing dads, even not dead-beat dads. The answer to them was: Too Bad. We want your money. Lawyers and the State "Must" be paid...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.