Another View of "Deadbeat Dads"
Rhode Island family law attorney Christopher A. Pearsall recently published an article on his blog, which analyzed the concept of labeling "deadbeat dads." I think that Mr. Pearsall's article is very insightful and causes one to pause to think about how that term is haphazardly thrown around. Here is his article:
Deadbeat Dads is a term that I hear fairly frequently in my travels with countless cases before the Rhode Island family court. I’ve used the phrase myself on an occasion or two in order to get my point across to one judge or another when the facts support the proposition that the father is intentionally taking steps to avoid paying the child support ordered for the support of his children.
Unfortunately, this is a term that is often overused, misused and even abused both by attorneys and by mothers who are simply angered that they are not receiving the funds the court ordered for the support of the child or children regardless of the circumstances. If the truth be told, there is no real definition of a “deadbeat dad” as the phrase has been coined. Yet the term is thrown around not simply descriptively but with the intent to injure the father or otherwise taint the court’s opinion. There’s no doubt that just hearing the words “He’s a deadbeat dad.” conjure up a vision of a father is intentionally avoiding his obligation to his children.
It has not been, nor will it ever be acceptable to be a deadbeat dad, but who makes that call. In the Rhode Island Divorce and Family Court System it is presumably the judge of the family court. Unfortunately this phrase is normally flung out by an offended party long before the Rhode Island Family Court judge ever makes his or her ruling.
In truth, there are many fathers who are struggling, financially, personally, emotionally and mentally. Not surprisingly, there are also many women out there with a the mentality that it matters little what happens to a father as long as she receives the child support set by an arbitrary schedule of numbers created by a committee. This is by no means a rebuke of the Rhode Island Child Support Guidelines, which are a necessary framework for the operation of the family court system and the provision of child support for children. It is, however, a unique commentary on a woman’s expectation and entitlement mentality toward the child support which is for the child and not her personal enjoyment or support.
Just in the way that children are entitled to be supported by their parents, aren’t parents entitled to survive at a minimal standard and with the understanding that we all run upon tough times and that sometimes the rule of law should bend to the factual consequences of the human condition and a father who just might be a victim of circumstance.
Language can be hard, hateful and injurious on a personal and legal level. The next time you hear someone refer to someone else as a “deadbeat dad”, stop and think about what you have heard, consider the source, and make a conscious decision to determine for yourself whether there’s enough proof to justify such a harsh accusation.
Source: "Deadbeat Dads . . . Overused and abused. . ." by Christopher A. Pearsall, published at his Providence Rhode Island Legal Solutions blog.
I take offense at the gender biased tone of this article, and the twisted view of the issues.
It is much more expensive (in the majority of cases), time consuming, physically/mentally exhaustive/neglective, to raise a child than it is to pay child support for the child. The guidelines are in place in order to prevent excuses being made for non-support. Self validations (excuses) for one's actions do not excuse one from the consequences of one's actions.
Several quotes from the article, and my views on them follow:
"It is, however, a unique commentary on a woman's expectation and entitlement mentality toward the child support which is for the child and not her personal enjoyment or support."
As a male w/custody, I feel my children should be entitled to support as well. The enjoyment of the custodial parent lends itself to the well-being of the children! Haven't you heard that saying, "If momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy." If the custodial parent is not allowed to sustain a mental state of wellness and happiness, then the custodial children will be more apt to suffer consequences, discord, and future troubles. It is the custodial children who's rights should be responded to first, as they lack the ability to provide for themselves.
"Just in the way that children are entitled to be supported by their parents, aren't parents entitled to survive at a minimal standard and with the understanding that we all run upon tough times and that sometimes the rule of law should bend to the factual consequences of the human condition and a father who just might be a victim of circumstance."
True medical emergencies withstanding, being unemployed, stupid, broke, or just a bum, are not adult excuses for failing the responsibility of support. Unfortunately, the courts have been far too lenient with excuses, and so many individuals have developed a false sense of entitlement. The "entitlements" should be to the children first, not to the parents who should provide for themselves.
[quote]
aren't parents entitled to survive at a minimal standard [/quote]
Parent's, like all adults, are given the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" the minimal standard that they can provide for themselves after providing for their responsibilities and the rights of others, the same rights given by the constitution. There is no "Entitlement" due an adult beyond those in the constitution. The government may provide for the "general welfare" of it's constituents as it sees fit, but there's no guarantee or entitlement. Those who cannot afford the consequences of an action, should not have done the action, they should not rely on other's support.
The writer needs to raise a few kids by himself for a few years. It would give him a revised outlook. What really bother's me the most about this article is it's gender bias. Both sexes should be provided equal rights under the law, without prejudice.
What about a mother who is working two jobs two support her children, spending every dime she makes to support and care for these children, to the point where she is sacrificing her mental and physical health, while the deadbeat dad refuses to work, only cares about maintaing his drug/alcohol abusing lifestyle, and thus refuses to pay support? Are we suppossed to keep penalizing the parent who stayed behind, stepped up to the plate, and does the right thing by working hard to support the children while the other deadbeat parent simply refuses to and does not care about the consequences? Come on, when right is right it = right. A lot of these guys refuse to step up to the plate and do the right thing, refuse to work, and put their kids needs/wants above their own. Everyone has problems, there are days that I and many of my single mom, no child support receiving friends, don't even want to get out of bed because we feel defeated. Many of us cannot not even afford to take a day for ourselves let alone pay to she a counselor. Yet we still get out of bed go to our one (or two) jobs, pay the bills and take care of the kids. We do not cry woe is me, and we do not play the victim. If we did our kids would be up the creek without a paddle and then no one would be there for them. We can't all be deadbeats, we can't all give in to "hard times (i.e drug addictions/made up mental problems/or fell sorry for ourselves.) Someone has to be there to mind the store and keep the family together.
YOU HELPPED ME WITH MY CASE BEFORE. I WAS HOPEING YOU CAN HELP ME AGAIN. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM CHARLES SCOTT BEAUMONT SINCE JANUARY 17, 2007, WHICH WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $13.75. I HAVE A COURT ORDER FOR HIM TO PAY $75.25 A WEEK. AS OF TODAY MARCH 14, 2007 HE OWES ME $27,810.08. I HAVE CONTACTED STEVE FOWLER IN SC 864-282-4663 HE SAID HE SENT A ORDER TO VA. FOR THEM TO ENFORCE A STRICT ORDER ON MR. BEAUMONT BUT I HAVE HEARD THAT SINCE 1994 WHEN HE FIRST RAN. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MR. BEAUMONT IS GETTING AWAY WITH THIS MATTER. $27,810.08 IS ALOT OF MONEY. HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUNISHMENT FOR THIS EITHER. CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ME.THE ONLY INFORMATION I HAVE ON MR. BEAUMONT IS AS FOLLOWED:
I KNOW HE LIVES WITH A GUY NAMED STEVE COUDLE AT 11964 HOLLYVIEW DRIVE WOODBRIDGE VA 22192 703-494-1156 WHICH IS PRINCEWILLIAM COUNTY
HERE'S SOME MORE ADDRESS 14905 GLADIOLUS COURT WOODBRIDGE VA 703-590-8076
12809 GREENHAL DR WOODBRIDGE VA 703-490-1629 PAM TIPTON (MOTHER) 8256 RICHMOND HWY. ALEXANDRIA VA 22309 703-878-3794 OR 11800 TROIKA CT. LAKE RIDGE VA 22192
CHARLES SCOTT BEAUMONT D.O.B. 12/28/69 SS 231-86-5549
THANK YOU,
CRYSTAL ANDREWS
864-449-2919
CRYSTALSC7@AOL.COM
I get so tierd of hearing that every man that gets behind in his child support is a deadbeat dad. I know some who ARE deadbeats and some who are honestly having a hard time either from losing a job or getting hurt on a job,and i also know some moms who spend none of the money they get for child support to take care of the child so there are all kinds of people in the world. I was a mom who worked two jobs to support my 3 children and i did get child support every week but its hard to make ends meet these days.