February 5, 1998
Editor, Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA  90053
email: letters@latimes.com
FAX (213) 237-7679
 

Re: Times Editorial, "Spur for Child Support - State's high court is right in telling deadbeats to get a job", February 4, 1998

Who would have thought that the day would come when a judge, a court commissioner, or a District Attorney could decide whether a person's choice of profession is appropriate? What is next? Should we take children away from married families that make less than the poverty level, since they could not possibly make enough to support their children? Should we put married parents who lose their jobs in jail for failing to provide adequate support for their children?

The logic behind this decision is severely flawed. This decision cannot be applied in any kind of consistent or fair manner. For example, there are wide disparities in child support awards. Some parents pay less than a hundred dollars per month. Others pay into the thousands per month. So if a person ordered to pay 3000 per month reduces his or her payment by half because they decide they can't afford the original amount, is that person to go to jail, even though they are still paying 15 times what the other parent is paying?

What about a non-custodial mother who is ordered to pay child support, and later becomes pregnant? Should we force her to work or go to jail rather than spend time with her newborn? Or perhaps we should take her new child from her unless she can prove she can provide financially for both?

What about the responsibility of the custodial parent? If the custodial parent is able to work, yet doesn't, does this decision apply to them as well? Are they as liable for financial support as the non-custodial parent? If not, why not? How can we tolerate in this society such disparities in the application of law? What ever happened to equal protection under the 14^th Amendment?

Would those of your readers who are parents agree to have their income and livelihood subject to the approval of the DA's office? Should we perhaps require proof of a minimum income and savings before being allowed to have children?

The entire Child Support Enforcement and Collection Industry never misses an opportunity to assert that the answer to all the social ills faced by children affected by divorce is money. This constant refrain is getting tiresome. Money cannot buy happy and well adjusted children. It has been said truly, "one should not forget that money can buy a bed but not sleep, finery but not beauty, a house but not a home, medicine but not health, luxuries but not culture, sex but not love, and amusements but not happiness." Nowhere is this more true than between children and their parents. Yet rarely do we hear of any government or judicial initiatives to promote greater participation of both parents in the lives of their children after divorce. Attempts to institute real joint custody and shared parenting arrangements are routinely blocked by such special interest groups as The Trial Lawyers Association and The National Organization of Women.

The sole emphasis on money over nurture of the child is seen in recent court rulings. It is legal for custodial parents to move out of state, since that is protected by the United States Constitution and the court's presumption is that whatever is financially good for the custodial parent is in the "best interest of the child." That the child will no longer enjoy a relationship with the non-custodial parent is not considered an issue. It is fine for the custodial parent to berate the non-custodial parent to the child and deny that child access his or her other parent. It is fine for the custodial parent to spend child support money any way he or she sees fit, with no accounting for whether or not the money benefited the child. These actions, after all, are not necessarily economic. They affect only the relationship of nurturance between the non-custodial parent and the child.

Yet if non-custodial parents change jobs, are laid off, or are disabled, they are then routinely labeled deadbeats unless they agree to slave at a job they may hate, or may find they are completely unsuited for, because a vindictive ex-spouse, conspiring with a money and power grabbing DA, says so. And you think this is a good thing? How, exactly, does putting a parent in jail who is experiencing difficulty in their emotional and financial lives benefit the child? How exactly does reducing a parent to a form of peonage benefit the child? Are you saying it is good for a child to see this happening to their own father (or occasionally the mother)? Is this some modern version of properly socializing children? Is this emblematic of the society that we want for the next century? If so, then I am profoundly ashamed of the society of which I am a part.

The extent to which the government is willing and able to meddle in the private and personal affairs of families and their children is truly frightening. Children are not, nor should they ever be, raised by the government. Children are best raised by their own parents. Study after study has demonstrated that children fare much better when both parents play an active role in their lives, especially after divorce. Yet our social policies in this area consistently reduce non-custodial parents to near bankruptcy, separate them off from their children, and severely hamper their ability to maintain a nurturing relationship with them.

Paying a court ordered child support award through the District Attorney's office has absolutely nothing to do with parenthood. How much money a parent makes has absolutely nothing to do with his or her ability to provide the love and guidance that are necessary for a child to grow up healthy and well adjusted. Money does not equal love, nor can it ever substitute for love. Perhaps it is time for our society to re-examine its priorities.

Sincerely,

Lowell Jaks

President, ANCPR