Surprised By This? Child Support And Other Stats

[Gwen]

MYTH NO. 4: Deadbeat Dads are common - most men don't pay their child support.

REALITY: Somewhere between 80 and 100% of men who are employed pay all their ordered child support, depending on who you ask. Even mothers (who are clearly biased against honest reporting in this area) report that 80% of fathers who are employed pay all that they owe. One must ask, of course, how you can expect a man who doesn't have an income to pay child support.

The huge majority of men who do not pay their child support are either (1) unemployed, (2) in prison, or (3) dead - literally. It is impossible, of course, to collect child support from any of these men, as they are unable to pay. Florida discovered this when they spend more than $4 million and collected a paltry couple of hundred thousand - proof positive that you can't enforce payment in the event that the obligor simply doesn't have the money - or isn't even breathing.

Weitzman and other feminist scholars have claimed that divorce settlements are tilted in favor of fathers because men are favored by a male-dominated system and are more aggressive negotiators. Yet on average, mothers are more satisfied with divorce settlements than fathers. Ten percent of mothers in Braver's sample thought the system was slanted in favor of fathers, while 75 percent of fathers thought it was slanted in favor of mothers--and more than a quarter of mothers agreed!

MYTH NO. 8: Child Support is for the children and has to be spent on their health, well-being and care.

REALITY: Not one state in the US requires recipients of child support to actually prove that the amounts received are:

1. necessary to meet the children's needs or

2. are actually spent on the children.

A number of states, in fact, actually document in their laws that part of the purpose of child support is to protect the standard of living of the custodial parent - almost always the mother - which would have existed had the divorce not taken place. If child support were actually for the children then a payer would be able to demand documentation that 1) the amount paid was actually necessary for the children's needs, and 2) was actually spent exclusively on the children.

In fact, one may reasonably wonder just what "child support" is really for, especially in the case where parents have joint physical custody. In most states, the presence of Joint Custody has very little, if any, impact on the award of child support - even though such practices appear to fly in the face of logic and the divorce statutes as written in many of these situations.

The Heritage Foundation report, "The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community," May 15, 1997 notes that: "[due to] ... the disintegration of family and community ... America's infants and young children, about 2,000 of whom -- 6 per day -- die each year," and provides the following estimate:

Total Children Killed Per Year: 2,000

Killed by Mothers 1,100 (55.0%)

Killed by live-in boyfriends 0513 ( 25.7%)

Killed by Stepfathers 0250 (12.5%)

Killed by Biological Fathers 0137 (6.9%)

This study demonstrates that the least dangerous place for a child after divorce is with the father by a margin of over 14 to 1 ( 2000 / 137 = 14.5985 ).

Stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are associated with the mother's household and therefore a child is 14 times more likely to be killed in the mother's care.

Excluding Stepfathers and Live-in boyfriends, mothers are 8 times as likely to kill a child than the biological father.

http://www.alfra.org/new/default.asp

[shanstress70]

Interesting stats, ALMom. My brother was just awarded custody of my neice after a 3 year battle with his ex-wife. She tested positive for cocaine and heroine, so we were all terrified at the possibility of her getting custody. The lawyers explained that in their state, the mother almost always gets custody even when using drugs. That is amazing to me!

Anyway, we're all happy with the outcome. Now if we could just get her mom to get some help! She's literally ruined her life. It's so sad.

[Dr T]

Thank you AlMom,

Number 3 brings new meaning to the term "Deadbeat dad" for me.

[JcDean78]

I think part of the issue with the mother having everything slanted in her direction starts with the governments view on Abortion. In those cases, the govt looks at it as 100% the mothers decision. They see it as her body and her child... her decision... even if the decision is murder. The man is simply a "doner"

If all the man is in the relationship is the "doner" then the man has therfor afflicted this woman with the child. She carried it to term, she gave birth, she might have nursed the child, all the man did was show up for a night.

So if divorce happens or a couple splits, it is the man who cause this affliction hung out to dry. The woman is now in the situation which the man put her in and so therefor the man must pay. But since it was her body and yadda yadda then she should also keep the child.

That is at least how it seems the govt rationalizes the whole thing and I believe it starts with the laws on abortion and the right of fathers there.

Somehow this needs to all change but I think the start of the fight is with abortion.

[Gwen]

JC you just opened a whole new can of worms for me. lol i get very tired of moms who think they can control every aspect of a childs life because she gave bith, as though the father isn't improtant or not his child too. fathers being refered to as donors is a very sore subject for me. i even think the father should have a right to have a say if his child is to be aborted. women need to get over themselves sometimes.

[JcDean78]

I agree, it is sickening how little rights a father has to his children. The govt really does just view him as the "doner".

[Fiannan]

This information should be in everyone's minds.

Bump.

[Winnie G]

80 and 100% well, I find that a little high.

I have two Ex’s and nether of them have paid a dime that was not dragged out of then by the government, I say 80 and 100% of my divorced friends have deadbeat Dads for fathers.

The same amount stops visiting their children as well.

Mine only showed up when he had a new girl friend and wanted to show his kids off.

He would call make arrangements’ and pick them up and they would all go out for dinner, he drop them off telling them next weekend and never show up until a new Girlfriend came along. My two youngest still have little to no contact with him, of course they are now adults.

He does how ever call to ask to barrow money that he never paid back.

When our son started collage three years ago he called and asked his sperm-dinner to chip in $80 dollars a month to help pay for gas, he said he call him back and never did so when our son called back two days latter he had his phone number changed.

80 and 100% is hoping

[a-train]

Yep, told ya. Women are nuts! That's why those dads bailed and they would get those kids out of there if they could! Proof? I'm no psychiatrist, but if she's killin' her own children I think she should be checkin' in with her local therapist.

I wonder how many of those deadly moms and boyfriends are into drugs and alcohol.

-a-train

[Gwen]

from the same site (bold added by me)

"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)

MYTH NO. 2: Divorced fathers desert their children emotionally and financially.

REALITY: The great majority fathers who are steadily employed consistently pay child support (their record is especially impressive if one looks not only at mothers' reports, on which most statistics are based, but at fathers' own reports) and work to stay in their children's lives. So-called "runaway dads" are often "driven-away dads" whose ex-wives keep them away. This causes many a divorced father to experience total alienation from their own children, and deprives children from having the love and nurturing of two loving parents.

Even if you ask mothers how often fathers desert their children emotionally and financially, only 12 percent attempt to claim that their ex-husbands voluntarily refuse to visit and spend time with their children. If you ask fathers, only three percent claim that they voluntarily miss time they should have with their children. In fact, a quarter of mothers admit they interfere with or deny entirely the children's father's access to their kids!

The truth is that only one in six fathers get the custodial arrangements they wanted, according to a study done by Sanford Braver, PhD (Arizona State University). A study done by Stanford University in the late 1980s showed the same thing - close to 70% of fathers wanted either joint or sole physical custody.

Statistically speaking, fathers don't abandon their children - they are forced out following divorce by the mothers of those children, usually without justification or legally-relavent cause.

remember this is a US site, don't know how the stats add up for other places. i'm not saying that deadbeats don't exist. what i do see is that the popular culture is playing the sympathy card, women identify with women, so even women not of a divorce situation get fed this stuff that all divorced dads are pathetic they sympothise and vote for ppl supporting greater laws to protect the mothers. i personaly know many deadbeat dad's, but i also know pushed away dad's. my husband is one that has had to fight, literly fight, to not be pushed away. he deals with it every day, and i've had my eyes opened by meeting more of these fathers. i used to think my husband was a minority, i believed the propaganda. this has got to stop. it is hurting the children to be without fathers. both parents are vital to a childs development. i'd like to see some laws created that reward good non residential/custodial parents for their efforts.

examples of things that would take nothing to put into effect, but aren't there.

child support is based on precentages: the parent paying more than 51% of the child's support should claim that child as a dependant. doesn't happen, couldn't even get it written into our personal papers, "because that isn't standard" so instead my husband pays 80% of his sons support and she does not have to claim that as income on taxes, hubby can't deduct it so he is taxed on it, and she is getting the single mom credit for "supporting her child" and we can prove hubby has never missed a payment. fair?

summer, hubby is to get 4 weeks out of the summer. we requested to retain our portion of the support (not to have her pay us, just retain ours) for the month of july to pay for the month that he is in our home. vacation, birthday, etc. one month support for one month stay. nope "not standard" so we have the boy, supply all the clothes and things he needs in our home, give him the same bday party and holidays as his siblings, all this for an entire month but still have to give her that months support. we are paying her to.... go on a vacation with her boyfriend while the boy is with us???? fair?

how hard would it be to pass a law that says, person paying more than half claims as dependant reguardless of residence, or if the child spends more than 4 consecutive weeks with the support paying parent they keep that month to pay for the child in their home? not hard concepts. so why isn't it done? or if a father can show he has payed all his support and been involved with his child, why not give a tax credit for his dedication, just like the single moms get. an incentive to stay involved, a reward for his hard work. how much would that change with the dads that are slacking? not sure it would, but it would reward the ones that didn't slack.

oh, i'd also like to see a change in terms. there are single moms and there are divorced moms. not the same thing. a single mom does it on her own, no support payments, no visits from dad, she is it. a divorced mom (hubby's ex) gets financial help, their kids have a father in their lives, their kids are raised by 2 parents. that is different. maybe if the two were seperated single moms could still get the special tax credits, but divorced moms have their payments, deal with your life.

i think all this should apply when a father has residence and it is the mom visiting and paying support, though less common, the rights should apply. not meaning to generalize. again i'm not saying that there aren't bad fathers out there, but not the majority, just the most talked about. time to change perspective.

[StrawberryFields]

I'm no psychiatrist, but if she's killin' her own children I think she should be checkin' in with her local therapist.

-a-train

Therapist? I think they should do time for killing a child.

[shanstress70]

so instead my husband pays 80% of his sons support

How does one figure this out?

[Gwen]

here they take mothers income and fathers income (monthly gross) and add it together. then there is a chart you look on and find the combined total and the number of kids supporting. not sure who decides this, but it gives you the amt that this person thinks it takes to raise that number of kids on that income. then you take the precentage. like hubby earns 80% of the combined income, so he pays for 80% of the amt it takes to raise one kid on that combined income.

the biggest flaw i see is there is no stopping point. what i mean is if both parents combined income is $3450 a month it takes $485 to raise one child but if they make $6650 it goes up to $809. it can go up to well over $1000 a month if the parents make enough money. so one child is worth more just cause the parents make more. there should be a top to it, reguardless of how much the parents make there is only so much that is "needed" to raise a child, any thing else is extra. which isn't a problem until that extra starts taking the necesities from other children that parent is supporting. any children from a previous divorce come first. so they would run the calculations for the first ex wife, subtract the amt of child support owed to that one from the monthy gross income, and then run the numbers again with the second wife. so it's a first come first serve till the man has bleed dry. lol (not that he shouldn't be more careful in his selection of wives or the children he fathers) any children from a current spuse that the father is supporting get no consideration at all. when recently requested to increase the child support, i asked that $250 (less than half of what she was already getting for the child) per each of my (4) children be taken out of hubby's gross monthy income to at least gaurentee that much was there for my children. again denied "not standard". $250 is not much to protect a child. i learned real quick that children of marrages have no value in the eyes of the court. i thought child support was supposed to provide for children. i was wrong, children have nothing to do with it.

oh, added on top of that number is work related childcare costs and such, so it could be more, that "isn't included" in what it takes to "raise the child". after you divide it up the parent paying health insureance can deduct that out of their portion.

i probably just made that really confusing lol

[Guest mamacat]

my now ex-husband hates paying child support....i was a stay-at-home mom before our divorce -- he had agreed to that during my pregnancy. although he did beg me to get an abortion and always referred to my impending babe as a 'dead thing.'

later he told me he only agreed to my being a stay-at-home mom as a way to control me, as he considered me and my son his 'property'. while i always considered staying home with my son as vital to my son's health and growth. (the LDS focus on the priority of children and their care is one of my favorite things.) i always asked my ex-h to help me start a cottage business at home, so that i could generate income while making my child my first priority, though he never would.

and i know that remaining with my son is still the most important thing, even though living on the bare minimum child support that he pays, with snarling resentment, is difficult. i feel very lucky to have emerged from our marriage alive, as his abuse was both severe and subtle, and put our lives in danger on many more than one occasion. he has told me that he would love nothing more than to see me living on the street, eating dirt.

but he is much too smart to avoid paying his child support....it is more to his advantage in making him look the victim and martyr. he doesn't care in the least that all his lying and subversive tactics against me are harmful to my son. it was much worse, in some ways, when we lived together, as his abuse was constant, but in other ways, it is much more scary now, and i'm always afraid for my son, though our lives are much better now.

even if those statistics are accurate, they don't describe the circumstances behind the situations. even if fathers pay child support, it doesn't mitigate their abusive and destructive behavior, in a lot of instances. in fact, it often makes it much worse.

[Canuck Mormon]

Speaking as a single father who's son is NOT living with him, I have to agree that the courts are women friendly. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in some cases. However, when me and my ex were married, she was the primary income source. She made about twice what I did. This is why she is the primary caregiver. When I went back to school to train for a more lucrative career, there were no child support payment due, seemed fair. Now that I have changed careers and am making more money, still about $15000/year less then she is, she is demanding that I pay half of my sons expenses on top of child care expenses. I was willing to pay a fair portion, but she demanded half. I asked her for a total, and it was less than if we went through the courts, so I agreed. Now I find out that this is NOT tax deductible and she doesn't claim it as income. I also found out that because I pay her for child care and not the daycare itself, I can't get a tax receipt to claim taxes. On one hand I can see why there are some deadbeat dads, but i don't excuse them from their responsibility. I also can not understand how someone can not want to be with their children. I can't go a week without missing my son. I only get to see him every Wednesday and every other weekend, plus vacations. In about a year or so, after my and my fiance have settled into our new lives together, we are going to ask for primary custody. I have nothing against women raising children, I just believe that there should be a male presence in the childs life, whether it's a boy or a girl.

[Guest mamacat]

it's interesting to note as well, how i've seen men abuse women by getting them started with alcohol and drugs, then using it against them, esp if it no longer works as method of control.

my previous boyfriend, who is gay and lied to me about it, induced me to start drinking alcohol and using marijauna. he always had it available for me, and always encouraged me to partake...however, after a few years, i went on a spiritual 'fast,' abstaining from all 'substances', coffee, cigarettes, caffiene, alcohol, over-the-counter drugs and marijuana. i did this for a few weeks, and at that time i felt the presence of spirit as i never had before, and became closer God. after that, i never went back to those substances...(except caffeine, which the word of wisdom resolved very nicely). that was 10 years ago. but the incredible thing, that i never expected, was how enraged it made him, that i chose no longer to indulge in these substances. i didn't realize that he was controlling my behavior through these substances.

after that, he and his 'friends' tried to get me to use more extreme drugs...such as cocaine and heroin, i suppose in order to continue to control my life. by then however, i was wise to their schemes, and i never used any of those drugs, or any of the others that they tried to ply me with. i never have and i never will...and i thank God every day that He gave me the opporunity to see through this at the time that he did.

the sad thing about this though, is that i see now how often men do this to women as a method of control. my ex-husband tried to force me to drink alcohol all the time, though i never would. he would hold a bottle under my nose and try to force it into my mouth....and would tell me to drink repeatedly, most of the time disregarding my pleas to stop. often, at restaurants and parties, he would place a cup of alcohol, wine or beer, at my place, attempting to make me drink. at first i couldn't understand why he was so adamant about this, but now i see. he would have used it both against me and to control me.

it's amazing to me to see the lengths that people will go to control others. i have seen far too many instances of men using drugs and alcohol to control their girlfriends and dates, and it is both shocking and sad.

i do believe that it is ideal for a child's well-being to have both female and male influences in his life. but when one of the influences is so negative and destructive, it has to be better to keep the child out of the way of physical and emotional harm. i tried staying, for far too long, with my ex-husband for this purpose. i now realize what a mistake this was, for the negative effects that my child has endured.

i have tried very hard to include positive male role models and influences in my son's life...most recently i found some excellent male instructors, very high quality, in a martial arts self-defense class. my son loved the male energy in their facility, and they were very good with working with and teaching children. however, my son's father, refuses to pay the fees, out of spite, i think. he has plenty of money for dining out, going to bars, holding barbecues and parties, etc., but will not pay for an excellent program for his son to attend. and though he makes a big show out saying that he cares about him, he makes clear that, in reality, my son is a very low priority in his life.

i know that i will find good male influences for my son, though i do fear the sabotage that we have always received from my ex-husband. i am sure though, that with the guidance and the truth that i have found in LDS that we will overcome these difficulties, and find a better path for all of us. :)

[a-train]

Them darn tweeds and wickey is dangerous!

-a-train

[pam]

To me all the child support in the world doesn't make up for a parent not being involved in their children's life at all. I've been divorced for 8 years and during that 8 years, 2 of my 3 kids have not seen their dad at all. Only recently he agreed to have one son come live with him. Temporarily of course and has now decided it was more than he bargained for. When we separated he moved 2000 miles away and has made no attempt at seeing the other two kids. Child support is great financially....not being a part of their life is extremely emotionally abusive to those kids. Knowing their dad has chosen not to see them takes a toll.

[Fiannan]

In Sweden there is an assumption that when a divorce takes place there will be shared custody -- unless someone was abusive. While I may at times come down against the Godless country there are things they get right. We should adopt their ideas on custody when a divorce does take place.