Should "deadbeat dads" face jail time?

No

1 of 27

by Tony Fantetti

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

First and foremost, it's an incontrovertible and statistical fact that more non-custodial mothers default on their child support orders than do non-custodial fathers. Furthermore, the mythological "deadbeat dad" is just that, a myth. There exists no credible data or evidence to support the "deadbeat dad" ideology. Only a very gullible and ill-informed public, as well as an anti-father, biased media that portrays all fathers (married and single) as incompetent dolts who not only lack meaningful parenting skills, but are also presumed to be incapable of raising their children without the assistance of a woman.

Most have bought the wholesale lie that the majority of fathers fail to meet their child support obligations, and this couldn't be further form the truth. Incarcerating indigent fathers for failing to pay child support is a violation of their constitutional rights. It's "debtors prison" and often times amounts to the state exacting revenge on behalf of a hateful and vindictive scorned ex-wife or ex-girlfriend; one whose sole motive is nothing more than to feed an insatiable desire to "make him pay" for what she perceives were his transgressions against her.

That scenario serves one, and only one purpose; to feed the insatiable contemptuous hatred that some women feel towards the men who've scorned them. Thats not only diabolical, it's maniacal as well. Incarcerating fathers who've fallen behind in child support payments is less about the children and more about the mother of those children "making him pay."

Please understand that I do not intend that as an indictment of all mothers. Nor do I say that as a reference to all mothers who rightfully receive reasonable amounts of child support. Rather, it's in reference to those mothers who are more common than society cares to admit; they are those who are euphemistically referred to as "child support moms." They are those whose sense of entitlement leads them to believe that in an age where more women than men are enrolling in colleges, and in an era where the stay-at- home-mom" is the exception rather than the rule, believe that in spite of a woman's level of education and earning capacity, she is entitled to up to 65% of the monthly gross income of her ex-husband or ex-boyfriend's salary.

This, despite that many of these same fathers have their children 50% of the time, and without regard for the fact he provides insurance for the children and pays up to 100% of their out-of-pocket medical expenses. Moreover, many of these fathers didn't ask to be kicked out of their children's lives, and turned into nothing more than "paying visitors" of their own children; they were forced into that role. Of all the fathers I've counseled, all requested joint-custody aka shared parenting. All were denied, and in every case (with the exception of a loving non-custodial mother whose children were wrongfully taken from her) the mother was awarded sole legal and residential custody of the children involved.

As the founder and current President of Ohio Council for Fathers Rights, I've been involved in enough cases to know that the system isn't just "broken," it's in pieces. Those who argue that incarcerating fathers and separating them from their children is in the "best interest of the children" are those who themselves should have their parenting abilities questioned. Generally, they are too short-sighted and also lack the necessary mental faculties to understand how this harms and thereby permanently emotionally damages the children involved, or, they simply don't care.

Those demanding the incarceration of fathers in arrears on child support should themselves be jailed for their own overdue payments to their creditors. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Discriminately incarcerating one class of people (fathers) for overdue financial obligations in a society, and not incarcerating others who are guilty of the same, amounts to a state-sanctioned discriminatory inquisition.

Perhaps all single mothers with delinquent and outstanding medical bills for treatment of their children should be summarily jailed? If a father becomes involuntarily unemployed following massive layoffs, and is without income and therefore "refuses" (or so he's accused) to pay his child support should be jailed for being a "deadbeat," then it logically follows that a mother who "refuses" to seek medical treatment for a sick child simply because she is without the means to pay is also without a valid excuse and should be locked up as well.
Given that a father who is unemployed through no fault of his is expected to "magically" produce income to pay his child support, then a mother without income through no fault of her own should also be expected to "magically" produce the necessary income to meet "all" of her children's needs. Should she fall behind in tuition payments, daycare payments or fail to provide for the children in any way financially, she should immediately be jailed for "refusing" to support her children.

The fact is, normal and loving caring mothers don't demand that their children's father be incarcerated after he's fallen upon hard times. Real moms understand and appreciate a father's role in the lives of his children. A mother who's "hell-bent" on having her children's father incarcerated for failing to pay child support, is a mother whose parenting abilities warrant immediate and serious scrutiny. Such ill-conceived, unwarranted and vindictive hatred is often times indicative of a woman whose out-of-control emotions have long forgotten the best interests of her children.

Yet, many women push for incarceration in such cases knowing full well the ensuing consequences a father faces following his release from prison. His child support arrears will continue accruing during his incarceration (with the statutory rate for interest compounded). It's likely that he'll never again obtain meaningful employment following his felony conviction for non-payment of support, he'll be without a driver's license (that too was suspended for non-payment) and his life will most likely be forever ruined.

Many white collar employers will not hire a convicted felon. Moreover, they don't differentiate between felony convictions. A felony conviction for criminal nonsupport of a minor child is viewed no differently that a felony conviction involving a violent criminal offense. Put simply, a felony is a felony regarding applicable disqualifying behavior for employment purposes.

Even worse, the child support enforcement agencies (CSEAs) regularly destroy a father's credit by reporting his delinquency to the credit bureaus. This further reduces a father's (now a convicted felon's) chances of securing meaningful employment considering that many Fortune 500 firms (especially financially related companies) refuse to hire anyone with a bad credit rating. Their logic is that it's indicative of "poor moral character."

Securing comparable reemployment for fathers who've lost their jobs, becomes nearly impossible after the CSEAs continuing punishing their unemployment as follows. Their driver's licenses are almost always suspended. This proves devastating for those such as truck drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers, postal workers, parcel delivery workers and others who depend on driving to earn a living. In a further display of behavior that's completely illogical and without reason, the CSEAs suspend the professional (aka occupational) licenses of "deadbeat dads." This means that teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants, professional engineers, real estate agents, barbers and others who must be licensed through the state to practice their profession, are now without the ability to legally work in their fields.

This forces those who depend on said licenses to seek remedial and often times low-paying jobs where they earn only a fraction of their previous salary. In a sickening display of wanton hatred and illogical abuse, these same fathers are then said to be "voluntarily unemployed" when they petition the courts for reductions in child support obligations. This, because their past earnings history (one that was established via their education and professional licensures) clearly demonstrates their ability to earn a significantly higher wage.

That said, not only do the CSEAs take away their ability to earn a good living, the courts and CSEAs have the unmitigated gall to punish them for "refusing" to earn that which they are capable of earning, and that, after the CSEAs took away their ability to do so. This results in fathers being ordered to pay child support in amounts that often times actually exceed their total monthly gross income. That's far more common that you might want to believe.

Since the courts and CSEAs will in the majority of cases refuse to lower his monthly child support obligation, it guarantees a steady stream of income for those "child support moms" (whose livelihoods depend on his financial assistance) for decades to come. A mother who ultimately succeeds in incarcerating her children's father is one who "hit the child support lottery" as his arrears will most likely have grown so large during his incarceration that he'll literally be paying her "child support" for the rest of his life.

Remember, in Ohio (and other states) incarceration is considered to be "voluntarily underemployment" for the purposes of calculating child support. That said, a father's income will be "imputed" during his incarceration. So a father who earns a meager $60 per month in prison wages must continue paying his $3000 per month child support obligation that was ordered while he was practicing law as a licensed attorney.

There are cases here in Ohio where fathers have been re-indicted for "refusing" to pay their child support during their incarceration. For some, this results in perpetual incarceration as they are tried and convicted under a more serious felony indictment for being a "repeat offender." This, while simultaneously being imprisoned for refusing to pay their child support following their involuntary loss of employment or a lengthy hospitalization due to a car accident, stroke, cancer, heart attack and other life-threatening medical catastrophes.

It's important to note that Ohio's statutes (as well as those of many other states) do not allow for non-payment of child support under any circumstances, and therefore treat the cancer stricken and chemotherapy receiving non-paying father no differently than he (or she) who's willfully avoiding his child support payments.

In Ohio all that matters is whether or not an existing court order requires that a father (or mother) pay child support. It doesn't matter that the child is grown and long gone, it doesn't matter that the children have stopped living with the mother and now live with the father, it doesn't matter that the child was killed and is now deceased (as was the case in Dayton Ohio when the Montgomery County CSEA not once but TWICE indicted a father for failing to pay child support on his "deceased" daughter). All that matters in the Buckeye State is whether or not a court order says a father should be paying.

Child support orders don't automatically become null and void following a child's emancipation in Ohio. A father must go to court to seek (and be granted) a court order to terminate a child support obligation. If he cannot afford to do so, then he must continue paying his child support indefinitely, or "go to jail." Is it no wonder that America incarcerates more people than any other country in the world? Is it no wonder that our nation's prisons are filled to capacity? Is it no wonder that a significant number of this country's inmate population consists of fathers who've committed no crime but were incarcerated for civil infractions such as contempt of court?

It's time for the lies to stop and for the truth to be told, child support is no longer about the "best interests of the children." Rather, it's about the best financial interests of the States of the Union, and at the expense of the children. Few people are aware that the States have made (and continue to make) billions of dollars in profits off of child support collections over the years.

In 2003 alone, the State of Ohio profited in excess of 223 "million" dollars from its statewide child support collections. For every dollar collected, the states receive "federal incentive matches" through Title IV Social Security funded dollars that we, the taxpayers provide. For every case the CSEAs label a "Title IV" case, the federal government aka the American taxpayer, rewards them with a "profit." Hence, the reason the CSEAs and the courts set child support obligations so high that fathers like me have gone bankrupt have had their utilities disconnected and lost their homes through foreclosure. The truth is, the states are incentivized financially to arbitrarily set child support orders unconscionably high, so as to maximize their annual profits through federal incentive, Title IV Social Security funded matches.

By creating the ever elusive "deadbeat dad", and thereby demonizing fathers and focusing the public's attention on this mythological "beast", the states have "earned" billions of dollars in profits by decimating the lives of loving and caring fathers, and this, at the "expense" of their children that they so dearly love.

What do the following fathers have in common? A father who broke his neck, a father who lost his law license after having a heart attack and who had his monthly "child support" obligation raised to $3000 a month, a father who stopped paying child support to the mother of his "deceased" daughter, a father who overpaid his child support? All of the aforementioned are fathers in Ohio who were convicted of felony criminal non-support of a minor child and therefore incarcerated for their "crimes." All are documented and proven cases in the State of Ohio that I have personal knowledge of.

The State of Ohio routinely incarcerates fathers who are either not behind in their child support payments, or stopped paying their child support because of medical problems or other reasons beyond their control. Nevertheless, the law allows for no exceptions. They are labeled "deadbeats", publicly humiliated, castigated and finally incarcerated for their "crime."

I personally had words with the Dayton Ohio (Montgomery County) Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) attorney who prosecuted a father and thereby incarcerated him for failing to pay child support on his DECEASED daughter! That attorney (in her futile attempts to defend her despicable actions) explained, that "it was a complicated case." Not surprisingly, the father whom she jailed was black. Black fathers as well as low income fathers are prosecuted and therefore incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates than are fathers of other races, and of higher socioeconomic status.

It's quite common for black fathers to be wrongfully maligned and accused of being "purposely absent" from their children's lives. I ask, for those who are indeed absent, why did they leave? Were they forced out and kicked to the curbs by the mothers of their children, as many fathers are through divorce? It's a question that that no one is willing to ask, but must be answered nonetheless.

In Ohio, fathers are routinely incarcerated for failing behind in their child support payments after suffering from a serious injury or illness that required an extended period of hospitalization. In Ohio, there are many fathers who have custody of their children, yet are required to pay child support to the mothers of said children. If they refuse to pay, they can be indicted, convicted and therefore incarcerated for felony criminal non-support.
How can this be? It's rather simple, Ohio statutes do not differentiate between those who "cannot" pay their child support (due involuntary job loss, illness, and hospitalization), those who refuse to pay, and those who "shouldn't be paying" due to changed circumstances. Statutorily, all are treated equally and are said to be "criminals" and "deadbeats" if they don't pay.

Contrary to what self-professed "experts" such as attorneys and others claim, child support calculations are not made after having "carefully considered" both the obligor and obligee's income and expenses, and this, to "ensure" that the children involved are provided for and therefore enjoy the same standard of living as was that prior to the separation.

In fact, in Ohio, it's quite the opposite. Child support calculations are made with absolutely no regard for the father's current expenses, and without regard for the financial implications it has on his living conditions. Calculations are based on his "gross" income and with monthly obligations set so high that many fathers are immediately bankrupted, lose their homes, their cars, have their utilities disconnected and live in poverty as a result.
Moreover, fathers who are "allegedly" behind in their child support obligations are prohibited from receiving any type of public assistance in some states. In spite of having no proof that a father has the financial ability to pay $2000 per month in child support, he either finds a way to do so, or he goes to prison, end of story.

One particular father I'm assisting has been pleading with the court to lower his monthly child support obligation. One whereby 65% (the maximum amount allowed under Ohio law) of his monthly income is forcefully taken for "child support" purposes and given to his ex-wife. He pleaded for the courts to lower his monthly obligation lest he be forced to move into a, drug and crime infested part of town with his three daughters, who are all under the age of five.

"DENIED!" The judge clamored, and in response to his Motion to Modify (requesting a downward deviation of his child support obligation). Left with no other choice, he secured a low-income apartment in a dangerous neighborhood. It's worth mentioning that he does not have a telephone as he can't afford one. Less than one week ago, I received an email (many single fathers don't have phones because they cannot afford them) from him that contained the following sentence: "My new place was broken into and robbed." How's that for ensuring that the children of this college educated white collar father enjoy the "same standard of living" as they did prior to his divorce?

Many, and who without any supporting statistical data or otherwise supporting facts, deceptively and falsely claim that the "majority of "deadbeat dads" willfully choose to abandon and therefore not support financially (or more importantly emotionally) their children. That's a patently false claim and is solely based on their ill conceived notion that the majority of fathers with child support arrears are "bad fathers."

The fact is, in Ohio and many other states, fathers are ordered by the courts to pay astronomically high amounts of monthly child support whereby it was never proven nor even remotely demonstrated that they ever had the financial ability to pay such exorbitant amounts to begin with. Amounts that in many cases, actually exceeds their monthly mortgage. Their order was set, they immediately fell behind, they were then labeled "deadbeats" when they "couldn't" pay as they "didn't" have the financial means to do so.

In many cases, the courts extract said payments from a father's paycheck through automatic payroll deductions, and often times in amounts up to 65% of his "gross" monthly pay. Accordingly, many fathers go bankrupt, have their utilities disconnected, lose their homes, and are forced to live in utter poverty as a result. This of course is said to be only "in the best interests of the children."

It's a well-known fact that the majority of divorces are sought by women. Many of these are sought for their highly-coveted financial benefits. Nationally, and in approximately 80-85% of cases, custody is automatically awarded to the mother, and without any regard for a father's ability to provide (both financially and more importantly, emotionally)for his children. This, despite that in many of these cases, both the mother and father work outside the home, and the children are in full-time daycare.Yet, the mother is still said to be the "primary caretaker" of the children. No, the daycare centers are the primary caretakers, let's be honest about this.

Fathers are then abjectly forced out of their children's lives and turned into "paying visitors" of their own children. They are contemptuously treated as nothing more than "ATM machines" with nothing to offer as parents other than a paycheck. These same fathers are given only days and in extreme cases mere "hours" per month to "visit" their own children.
Moreover, and in addition to paying child support, the father is usually required to provide health insurance for the children (often times in excess of $500 per month) and to furthermore "reimburse" the custodial parent (usually the mother) for "her" out-of-pocket medical expenses that were paid with his child support monies to begin with.

If the unthinkable happens, and this father becomes unemployed through no fault of his own, he must continue paying the same amount of monthly child support, and without regard to his ability to do so. Should he fail to pay, he's labeled a "deadbeat" and in many cases indicted for criminal felony non-support of a minor child, and incarcerated for years at a time.
The courts will not usually lower his child support order merely because his factory closed and moved overseas. If he cannot secure another $30 per hour union job, he is said to be "voluntarily underemployed" and ordered to continue paying a monthly child support amount that in some cases actually exceeds his monthly unemployment compensation amount.

If he continues "refusing" to pay his child support during his unemployment and as he frantically continues searching for another high-paying job in this terrible economy, his "felony clock" begins ticking. It doesn't matter that he makes partial payments in an effort to pay something, In the State of Ohio, and under Ohio statutes, a payment that is one-dollar less than the full amount is regarded as a "missed payment" under Ohio law.

Should his misfortune continue, and if this "deadbeat" misses 26 "non-consecutive" payments during any consecutive 104 week period (that period could include 12 weeks of hospitalization due to a heart attack or stroke) he's eligible for felony indictment. Despite the CSEAs and others falsely claiming that innocent fathers are not targeted and therefore incarcerated, many of those indicted and jailed are loving fathers. Fathers who cry over their children during their incarceration.

Women rightfully demand equal rights when it comes to jobs, opportunities, pay, promotions and all other respects where women have traditionally been wrongfully discriminated against merely because of gender. Great strides have been made, albeit with much progress still needing to be made.

That said, it's time for "equal rights" regarding child rearing. Fathers are deserving of joint custody and sole custody if the mother is deemed unfit. Equal rights should translate into equal financial responsibility when raising children. Single mothers should pay 50% of the expenses associated with child rearing. That's not the case most of the time. Generally, the father pays 100% of the costs of raising the children from broken homes after he's forced into the role of that of a "paying visitor."

Many states' child support statutes were written more than 30 years ago when the "majority" of mothers were uneducated (collegiately) and were stay-at-home moms in single income households. That's no longer representative today's American family. Today, many mothers are college educated with advanced degrees, have full time careers, and the children are often time places in full time daycare as young as eight weeks of age.

Yet, when the marriage breaks up, (with most divorces being initiated by women) the mother is usually declared "primary caregiver" and awarded huge amounts of tax free money deemed to be "child support" so as to be able to pay for household expenditures such as food, clothing and housing for the children. Sadly, many fathers (me included) are financially devastated and driven into bankruptcy as a direct result.

The so called "logic" many use to rationalize receiving thousands per month in child support payments is said to "provide for the children." In reality, the fathers are usually forced by the courts, and under the threat of incarceration, to support two households (their own and that of their ex's) while living in absolute poverty himself.

Said logic is without basis, is meritless, and ill-conceived. I am fortunate in that I have my daughter exactly 50% of the time. I too happily and eagerly provide food, clothing, shelter, schools supplies and everything else she needs while she's with me. Moreover, I am responsible for medical insurance and 50% of all out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by the custodial parent.

I, as do most non-custodial fathers, have "more" expenses than does the custodial parent because I must pay child support and provide health insurance, and this, in spite of my daughter being with me exactly 50% of the time. Why? It's because I am labeled as a "non-custodial" parent (NCP). Therefore, it's as if all of my living expenses "magically disappear" following a divorce. Therefore, I must pay nearly $1000 per month in child support while simultaneously paying all other financial obligations that "don't exist" in the eyes of the court.

Given my other financial obligations didn't truly disappear after I was ordered to pay child support, everything else did. I lost my house, sold most of my possessions, have had the electric disconnected, phone disconnected, and the water is scheduled for disconnection. I lost my job when the sheriff's department appeared at my former place of employment to arrest me on an outstanding "CIVIL" warrant.

It was ordered by the court that I be taken into custody without a trial, without having been afforded counsel and without having been Mirandized after I was found to be in "contempt of court" for "refusing" to pay the court costs associated with my divorce. I "refused" to pay court costs because I was indigent and therefore without the financial means to do so because my child support order bankrupted me.

In spite of me being overdrawn nearly $600 in my checking account, and being nearly $4,000 behind in my mortgage, the court ruled that I was employed (at the time) and therefore able to pay court costs. When I didn't pay because I couldn't pay, a warrant was issued for my arrest.

After the "fugitive warrant unit" came to my former place of employment, I was (and for the first time in my life) terminated by my employer. Naturally, I did what any other father in my position would do. I filed a "Motion to Reduce" in an attempt to lower my monthly child support obligation.

"DENIED!" The court ruled. In spite of my monthly unemployment compensation being only $1,680 (gross) I must continue paying $1020 per month (it was raised since it's alleged that I am in arrears even though I'm not) in child support. That leaves me with $640 per month to support my family. Some months, gasoline costs consume nearly $600 per month.

Given that the CSEA alleges I'm in arrears in my child support (which I can prove I am not) I do not qualify for any public assistance. I've lost nearly everything. Considering the economy, finding a job has proven difficult. Following the termination of my unemployment compensation, and if I cannot secure employment, I will surely fall behind in my child support obligation.

Following that, and considering that the court will most likely rule that I am "voluntarily underemployed" I will await my felony indictment after I "refuse" the CSEAs repeated offers to willingly comply with my child support order by "refusing" to pay my child support because I am without any income.

Contrary to what others claim, what I just described is not an aberration, it's the norm. Incarcerating loving fathers who unwillingly fall behind in their child support payments is unconscionable, without moral character, and clearly not in the best interest of the children.
Sadly, the majority of fathers whom I know personally, and who were incarcerated for being "deadbeats," were indicted, convicted and incarcerated not for "refusing" to pay their child support, but because they had fallen upon hard times, and because contrary to what others claim, the law does not differentiate between them and those who choose not to pay.

A father who has been met with misfortune, who has fallen upon hard times and who has unwillingly fallen behind in his child support obligation is not a criminal, is not a deadbeat, and should not be incarcerated for his "crime." Sadly, prisons across the country are presently filled with such "criminals."

It's time for the lies to stop; for the truth to be told, for all fathers who are in arrears to stop being wrongly maligned as "deadbeat dads" and more importantly, for a moratorium to be issued on child support related incarcerations; and for the profiteering (at the expense of fathers and children)by the states(whereby billions have been made in profits to date) to cease, until we have reasonable and up-to-date child support related statutes in place. Statutes whereby the states are no longer financially incentivized to decimate the lives of innocent children, and this, for a sum of money known as a 'profit.'

"For the love' of money is the root of all evil."

Learn more about this author, Tony Fantetti.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.