DATE: February 16, 1998

TO: Stacy Scholder, KNBC News

FROM: John Smith, ANCPR (www.ancpr.org)

RE: "Deadbeat Parent" Response

Your story was another in a long line showing how the current system only cares about collecting money, separating children from their fathers and punishing the non-custodial parent. I hope you will take time to investigate and report the other side of the story. This affects over 23M children in the US alone.

Here were my thoughts as I watched Laurel Erikson’s piece:

"It used to be a domestic problem but now prosecutors are treating deadbeat parents as criminals"

How can this be good for children, when they see their parent treated as a criminal? It only helps to teach them disrespect for law and authorities.

"The California Supreme Court says not having a job is no excuse"

This is a very controversial ruling and could have severe unintended consequences such as taking children away from mothers who don’t work or work, but don’t earn enough. But it is another enlightening example of how the system ignores reality. If not having a job is no excuse (to pay child support), then please explain how payments are supposed to be made. Most often, they throw people in jail, knowing that family or friends will bail them out and loan them money to pay support. It is unconstitutional to force a person into debt or jail them because they cannot pay.

"What it’s about is helping the children deadbeat parents leave behind."

This statement reinforces the stereotype that men aren’t interested in their children. This is not true. The system forces fathers into exile by awarding excessive child support orders, denying fathers access to their children and not enforcing laws against mothers who interfere with visitation and as your piece mentioned, turns them into criminals.

"Helping the children" is the most common excuse given (for collecting support) and the public has fallen for this "money solves all problems" approach. Were you aware that studies show states with higher child support awards and welfare payments, are the lowest in child well-being? And states with the lowest payments have the highest child well-being? This is because these same lower paying states have a higher percentage of intact families. In other words, ensuring the children have access to both parents is absolutely crucial in proper raising of families - not money.

65% of all divorces are initiated by women. And with no-fault divorce, you don’t need a reason. So most fathers lose their children and get financially raped while the person initiating this action is rewarded. Divorce rates vary with economic conditions - during boom times, divorces increase and during bust, they decrease. If money solves all problems, then why do divorces increase during economic booms?

"Prosecutors say Charles Powell quit his $60K/year job to avoid paying child support."

"The DA says..." That’s not a very reliable source. How do they know he quit because he didn’t want to pay support? What if he had a stressful job and wanted to make a change for health reasons? Or perhaps because of greedy lawyers, politicians and his ex-wife - he felt ‘why work this hard only to have most of my income taken away?" Can you blame him? The tax a non-custodial parent with only 1 child pays is at least 58% of their income (38% tax + 20% support)! They must pay support, don’t get any tax credit for it (or claim dependents) and don’t get to spend equal time with their kids.

Poor Debbie Powell - she was only getting $1,000/mo*! Do you spend $500/mo, every month on each one of your children? If so, they’re probably spoiled rotten and do not know the value of money. How does this compare with other payments the same government makes:

So if we use the foster care figure (as reported in the 12/15/97 issue of People), this means that both Debbie and Charles would be responsible for $358/mo/child. So Charles’ portion would be less than $358 and if evenly divided, $179/mo.

But $1,000/mo wasn’t enough for Deb or the judge, or the DA or her attorney - it was only when the judge raised the amount to $1,336/mo that Charles said farewell. An all to common example of the system forcing a father out of his children’s lives by encouraging custodial parents to keep asking for more. If you want to see this in action today, watch LA’s DA "Family Focus" public access program where they blatantly encourage mothers to ‘come on back and ask for more any time you want’ (see "A Child is Waiting" segment of Family Focus which has a special emphasis on the last instruction about modifying support orders "after all, things change").

Accountability - that’s something a custodial parent never has to worry about. No one checks to make sure they are spending child support money only on the child. Not only will no one ask, but it is illegal to raise this question in court.

"After he (Powell) left, his teenage sons turned to drugs"

This shows the importance of having both parents involved in raising children. Why does the DA place all the emphasis on money and none on the children? I missed hearing how the DA’s office was going to re-unite Mr. Powell with his kids. That’s the most important thing - much more important than collecting money.

"But she knows that money can never buy back her family’s happiness."

Exactly - so why did she ask for more money? She should have lower or eliminated any child support - after all, she has already raised them without the money - and put all her efforts into reuniting the children with their father. I didn’t hear her say anything about that.

* - The DA has a "Most Wanted" poster out for a father who owes $63K for his 4 year old. That’s over $15,500/year!!! Remember, this money is only supposed to be used for the child.

Can someone explain why the County is using taxpayer’s money to separate families when they know this only creates a multitude of problems including gangs, violent crimes, drug use and teen pregnancies?