Conference quokka::non_custodial_parents

    Fred,  did you see the 20/20 report?    I'm just curios.
    
    Boston channel 7 aired a one minute fund raising add for an
    organization called "Save The Children"? --not sure if that is the
    correct name--  In the add a woman proclaims that   "The childrens 
    father refuses to pay for their medical insurance". 
      I thought it was another cheap shot at dads.  Maybe the woman could
    have said "The childrens dad just got laid off from his job and can't
    find employment so he has no medical coverage"
    Seems like there is no end to father bashing!      Bill 

    
    re .1
    I taped the program, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet due to 
    all the holiday stuff.  I'll try to put in an overview as soon as I get 
    a chance.
    
    fred();

    
    Sorry I didn't get a pointer to this ahead of time, but it may be just
    as well.

    There was a show on PBS's Frontline last night about "The Disappearing
    Father".  It was billed as a researcher's findings of the detriment
    that children face when growing up in a single-parent (fatherless)
    family.  

    I taped the show because I wasn't home, and even stayed up late to
    watch it.  Major disappointment.  There was a bit on the researcher's
    findings.  She even admitted that she did not believe the results and
    had spent _years_ trying to _disprove_ the results.  She could not.
    The findings cut across all financial levels, all races, all religions,
    all geographical areas, and whether the mother was receiving child
    support or not.  The finding simply state that the lack of a father
    in the home is a serious detriment to the development and success
    of a child.  The chances that the child will drop out of school and/or
    end up in trouble with the law _double_.

    Having said that, the show spent 80% of the time on rounding up 
    "deadbeat dads" and throwing them in jail.  With the mother having
    just been to the beauty parlor and the children in their Easter
    Sunday clothes, and the father looking like, well, like he'd just
    got out of jail.  I found it interesting that even the youngest
    (about three) knew all the gory details about how Dad had been thrown
    in jail for failing to pay child support, and Frontline felt the need
    to throw in some psychologist explaining why the the children still
    loved their father in spite of what a rotten jerk he is.  They also
    tried real hard to give the impression, even stated directly once, that 
    most divorces were caused by men.

    They did throw in one obligatory case about a man going to court to
    get to see his child.  When the mother stated her reason for failing
    to let him see his daughter was that it made him a better father 
    because she forced him to take the responsibility of taking her to
    court, my TV was in serious physical danger for a bit (:^}).  They
    did include a quote by the judge (I think) stating that he had the
    highest respect for the father that didn't get derailed by the 
    system, and fought through all the *bleep* to maintain a relationship
    with his child.

    Bottom line, though, was that it was mainly another one-sided exercise
    in male bashing.  Only maybe 5 minutes of the show was dedicated to
    the original billing.  So if you missed it, you probably didn't miss much.

    fred();

    That's really a shame, I can't help but think things will have to
    change soon.  I've read that 70% of divorces are initiated by the
    mother.  It's really not surprising, considering she has so little to
    lose financially. She may even consider that she will be financially
    better off, to the detriment of her husband whom she'd like to punish 
    anyway. A man has to consider losing practically everything
    financially, mainly when there are children involved and the wife is
    not working. I'll bet the percentage of women who initiate divorce is 
    much different for couples with no children or grown children where both
    couples are working.  When the going gets tough, the rules encourage 
    divorce by the woman.
    
    By the way, my husband just finished his final college payment!  Too
    bad his daughter has been so turned against him by her family that
    she refuses to see him, or have him at the graduation.  He's such a 
    bad guy, never missed a payment, did everything to make her happy.
    Well, at least now he's free of the great financial burden.  Maybe now 
    that she's out of mommys clutches, she'll see he's really not such a bad 
    guy after all.  Not keeping my fingers crossed though.
    
    (please feel free to move this note, I guess it doesn't belong here)
    
    Sharon

    
    Oh yes.  Hillery Clinton was on Oprah yesterday.  Actually a lot 
    better than I thought it would be if you could get past he love-fest
    between Hillery and Oprah.  Hillery seems to be pushing "family values"
    real hard.  The realization is slowly dawning that single parent
    families and the "A woman needs a man like a fish  needs a bicycle--Oh,
    by the way, don't let the child support check be late" attitude just
    don't get it.  A lot of her schpeel could have been written by Dan
    Quayle.  Oprah (??!) trashed day-time tv talk shows for  presenting 
    moral decay as "normal".  "Not only is it ok to have sex on the first
    date, but we should have reunions later with our one-night stands". 
    They did hit on "deadbeat dads" but didn't harp on it as I would have 
    expected.  

    fred();

re 333.3 about Frontline "The Disappearing Father"

	Thank you for posting your review.

	I think the fact, that the researcher didn't want to believe the
	results and had to, is a very positive thing for the men's movement.
	Since she tried so hard to not believe, her data will be
	much harder to dispute.

	You called much of the rest of the show male bashing.   I didn't
	see the show but wonder if perhaps this isn't an overreaction.
	When you go to the post office and most of the wanted posters are
	men do you see this as male bashing ??   There are lots(1) of
	noncustodial parents who don't make court ordered(2) support
	payments.   The last time I was in a NH liquor store and read the
	poster I was impressed with how the noncustodial parents pictured
	weren't just a little behind.   It didn't sound like they were just
	having a hard time making the payments.   Things like owed $60/week
	and were $30,000 behind.

	I think divorce leaves lots of hurt feelings, and there is lots
	of blaming going on.   In this environment it's easy to feel
	an attack on one man or a select group of men is an attack on
	all men.   But dumping on real Deadbeat Dads shouldn't be confused
	with saying all men are deadbeats.

	I think the real danger in this environment is the governments
	tendency to say "our laws aren't working, let's make harsher laws
	and find SOMEBODY, to hit with them".   e.g. taking away the
	drivers license from a deadbeat who never makes any child
	support payments is one thing, taking it away from parent who
	is a week behind is another.  And the other danger is giving
	enforcement to agencies who like to threaten loss of credit,
	confiscation of refunds, etc, and won't listen to evidence that
	no arrearage exists(e.g. the Mass DOR).

	Some of us, who like conspiracy theories, think the interest of the
	state in collecting from "Dead Bead Dads" isn't to help the kids
	or the mothers.  The state is just looking for ways to get back
	the money they paid in welfare to the mom !!!   So don't take
	it personally.


(1) lots is a vague number, but the poster in the NH liquor store provides
names for 10 in that state.   I've indirectly become acquainted with
several others, so I do believe they exist.

(2) I'd like to suggest part of the reason more women don't appear
is because often men who get custody don't ask for support from the
ex and so it's not "court ordered".   It would be interesting to know
what percentage of women who were ordered to pay large amounts of support
made the payments versus what percentage of men who were ordered to pay
large amounts of support.

	I think your last point is excellent .....
	
	It is on par with the suggestion that men do not report abuse by their
	spouse .... we just tend to take it.

	Regards,

		Chuck

    
    RE .6

>	You called much of the rest of the show male bashing.   I didn't
>	see the show but wonder if perhaps this isn't an overreaction.
>	When you go to the post office and most of the wanted posters are
>	men do you see this as male bashing ??   

    I viewed it as male bashing because the researcher herself stated that,
    for reasons of the survey,  the same problem occurred whether the
    mother was receiving child support or not.  That is, as a part or cause
    of _this_ problem, child support is irrelevant.  The show was billed as
    the problems children face because there is no father in the home, not
    as a "deadbeat dads" issue.  Yet they turned  around and spent 80% of
    the show on throwing men in jail for not paying "child support", 
    showing the CP in as good a light as possible while showing the NCP in
    as bad a light as possible.  The mother looked like something that just
    came back from the beauty parlor and the father looked like something
    that _should_ be in jail.  Also for trying to paint men as the primary
    cause of divorce.

>(2) I'd like to suggest part of the reason more women don't appear
>is because often men who get custody don't ask for support from the
>ex and so it's not "court ordered".   It would be interesting to know
>what percentage of women who were ordered to pay large amounts of support
>made the payments versus what percentage of men who were ordered to pay
>large amounts of support.


    I have custody,  I have a support order.  I can't collect support.
    Last time I tried, the judge said the he couldn't do anything because
    she was _unable_ to pay.  She quit her job and was living off her 
    husband's income, and his income didn't count for child support.

    I'd say the show would have been better spent on how father's access 
    is limited by his own actions, and by the mother's actions.  There
    are many single mother's on welfare who refuse to name the father 
    because welfare will go after him to pay child support, then she may
    have to deal with him for visitation.  When all she wanted from him in 
    the first place was stud service.

    We are seeing, more and more, is that in the long term, a father's 
    involvement in the child's life may well be more important than the
    financial support, but right now, the priorities seem to be upside
    down.

    fred();

    
re 333.9    RE .6
.9> I have custody,  I have a support order.  I can't collect support.
.9> Last time I tried, the judge said the he couldn't do anything because
.9> she was _unable_ to pay.


    This bothers me.   I thought the dead beat dads who got jailed were
    the ones who refused to make any effort to pay.   And this would mean
    men who had income or who quit their jobs so that they wouldn't have
    to pay.

    Does the judge you had ever jail deadbeat dads ?    (Is that
    information available ?)   If so, how did their cases differ from
    yours (except for sex) ?   Can you find out what your judge does
    in cases where the guy quits working ?

    I would think that if there was a pattern of your judge being severe
    with males in this situation, that it might be worth going back
    again and pointing out the record.    Maybe this could be the
    basis for an appeal ?   Or maybe a complaint to some judicial review ?

    
    re .10

>    Does the judge you had ever jail deadbeat dads ?    (Is that
>    information available ?)   If so, how did their cases differ from
>    yours (except for sex) ?   Can you find out what your judge does
>    in cases where the guy quits working ?

    Information on what the judge does to deadbeat dads is unavailable.
    He did say that he was unable to throw her in jail if she was 
    _unable_ to pay (no income) vs able to pay (some income) and 
    deliberately not paying.  It is a lot easier for a woman to quit
    work or get fired and just live off her husband's income than
    for a man to do the same.  Being in another state it is difficult
    to prove she is working and able to pay.  However the meter on
    the amount owed is still running.  She has since divorced her 
    second husband and moved to yet another state.  I can't have her
    held in contempt unless I can get her back in the state (they 
    won't extradite someone on contempt charge), and she has not come 
    in the state even to visit the kids for two years now.
    Seems like she would rather not pay child support than see the
    kids.

    fred();

    I don't really understand this deadbeat dad in jail thing.  My ex has
    hardly ever paid, even when it was only $40 per week for two children. 
    I took him to court for not paying, the judge uped it to $80, I got a 
    few payments and he changed jobs. I didn't even get back the $600 it
    cost me for a lawyer.  I've got three payments in the past 2-3 years
    and the last one bounced, to the DOR.  They informed me they were owed
    and would keep the next payment he made.  Every time I call I have a
    run around, they tell me they can't find my 'case' they'll call me
    back. They never do.  
    I've given up. I  informed them that I believe if I was on welfare they
    would be after him in a flash, but because I work for a living they
    don't bother.  They deny it, he owes $8000+, but I know I'll never see
    it.  He's just really bad with money.  He can see the kids anytime he
    wants, I've always encouraged it and they love him dearly.  I just wish 
    he'd help out, I'm worried about college. 
    
    Sharon

	Sharon,

	What state is this in ?  

	Chuck

    Massachusetts. He has since moved to North Carolina, but it wasn't any
    different when he was here. 
    When I was on AFDC though, totally different story. They wanted to drag
    him back to court and get more money, I said no, but they were
    constantly on my case and after him.  Now that I'm working, (it's been
    seven years now).  They don't ever want to hear from me, I've even been
    told that I should just give up.  Humm, isn't this driving the wrong
    behavior?  Go on welfare, they'll be right there!
    
    Sharon

    Tonight (10pm in the Boston area) on 48hrs, they are discussing child
    custody.....fathers winning sole custody, shared custody and
    international adoptions.....
    
    Roberta

    
    
        Tonight.  Jan 2, 1996.  10 p.m. Eastern, 9 p.m. Central, 9 p.m.
        Mountain, and I don't know about Pacific will be a television show
        near and dear to the hearts of many of us:
    
        The Trouble with Lawyers--John Stossle.
    
        If you are going to watch the football game, mihght want to set the
        VCR.
    
        fred();