Phyllis Schlafly wrote an interesting column calling for the repeal of the federal Bradley Amendment, which, according to her, "mandates that a child-support debt cannot be retroactively reduced or forgiven even if the debtor is unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see his children, or loses his job or suffers a pay cut." (emphasis mine)

She further notes that "There is no requirement that, if and when the Bradley debt is paid, the money be spent on the children, or that the debt be based on an estimate of the child's needs, or even that the so-called children actually be children (some states require the father to pay for college tuition)," and that "The law even forbids bankruptcy to alleviate the Bradley debt." She says that men who've been wrongly sentenced to jail for crimes that they didn't commit have found themselves upon release hit with legal actions for "child support" debt that accumulated while they were in prison, and had no way to pay it. She also said that men can be held in contempt of court for not paying it, which is a form of debtor's prison.

So the questions for debate:

1. Should the Bradley Amendment be repealed?

2. What, if anything, should replace it, and should it be done at the state or federal level?

3. Is there any reason at all why a man who was proved not to be the father, and who never made any other voluntary commitment to the child, should in any way be financially liable for supporting the child?

4. Should men who are responsible for child support payments have any say at all in how the money is spent? If so, to what extent?

Repealed--No
Adjusted for reality -- yes

One the money should be structured to ensure it goes to cover child related expenses only--not rent or anything like that. Food, Clothes, education, medical.
It should all be very transparent and open to full review with court approval.
I also believe that father SHOULD have a right to decide how the money is spent--within reason.
One of the nice things about todays legal system is a restoral of a father's rights after a divorce. The changes in custody and time with kids is definitely being made fairer. Obvious exception due to violent behavior or addiction problems of course being accounted for.
I even read about a trial of the main home being maintained for the children to live in and the parents having to find alternate housing for when they are not in charge with custody. Why should the kids suffer overmuch for the inadequacy of the parents.

If the child is not yours you should not be required to support the child--however if you have been there for a significant amount of time and MADE yourself the father figure--yes you should. I cannot adequately express my disgust or revulsion for any man that would walk away from that. Beyond contempt.
In cases where the mother knowingly used deceit she should face charges and even custody loss--with the tricked father able to either get custody OR visitation rights just like a biological father, depending on how much a part of the child's life he has been.

I am not sure how a federal law applies to states.

However the ideas being expressed in Schlafly's article are on the mark. The idea that men should be treated as criminals because they are fathers is totally nonconstructive to any notion of helping children. I cannot adequately express my disgust or revulsion with people who can seperate the concept of parenting from the oppressive court demands to transfer large amounts of money. I am well aware some hold dear to them that a father's role in raising children is to provide money to a mother to nurture their children. Being a father is an important role which should not based on this.

I do not understand why anyone clings to the idea that mothers who do not have enough money to raise their children should be given money but fathers wo do not have enough money to raise their children should be fined and jailed.

Should any parent, female or male, who is not adequately providing for their children have some sort of consequence? Perhaps. The current application of such in the courts is discriminatory, arbitrary, and injust. All laws federal and state need a major reconsideration, more than adjustment, but a completely different starting point.

How many people think we should have laws to put people in jail because they can not pay their bills? I doubt hardly anyone. Then how come we have family law which creates a bill and then throww people in jail when they can not pay it?

I completely AGREE. Consider the fact that millions of fathers across the country would gladly pay court costs to have their cases opened and reviewed, it's seemingly a win-win situation for the states as well.

Expenses such as additional rooms in an apt, electricity, food, clothing, insurance expenses, medication, etc should all be considered. Arbitrary amounts set by the courts only cause animosity and drive wedges in already strained relationships, and cause distress for children that is undue.

Frankly, I think as much as we talk about "dead-beat" fathers, there are probably millions of men in the US getting the shaft financially because of the child support structure! TX is often as high as 20% of the monthly income.

If there were a structure in place where yearly the mother is required to keep tabs on expenses and the amount spent for the costs of rearing children, & consequently the fathers could furnish receipts for said expenses, I believe that the court system could charge for hearings such as this (to be paid by the initiating mother/father). It could be a cash cow for women not getting enough money, fathers paying too much, and for the courts!

I've mentioned this on other threads, but let's use a good round (and realistic) figure. If a father makes $60K in Dallas, TX and goes to a child support hearing... there is a great chance that his child support could be in the $1000/mo range. This payment does not require the mother to save for college, pay for braces, send the child to boy scout camp, etc. It is an arbitrary number assigned by the court, and taken out of a man's check if necessary.

If $1000/month was being spent, that's not all that absurd. However, if an additional bedroom in an apt in Dallas costs $300 (give or take), food costs $300, and incidentals cost $150... the father has not only carried the complete financial burden, but augmented the mother's income by $250/month.

If a mother had to bring in documentation that showed that her $800/mo apt would've cost $600 for one bedroom, that groceries cost $500/mo (divided by two), that college savings were $100, insurance cost her an additional $100/mo, prescriptions cost $30/mo, clothes were $50, and incidentals cost $100... the father's burden at 50% would've only been $415!!! Heck, give the benefit of the doubt and add $100 extra (we all know kids can be expensive) and you're up to the whopping 1/2 (roughly) of the court mandated amount.

Because a father is successful, does that mean that his child support should be used to pay for the mother's lifestyle? What if the father makes $90K/year? That's a $1500/mo child support check. In Dallas, you could send a child to a relatively expensive private school (i.e. Jesuit), offset the cost of additional rental/mortgage space, pay for food, pay health insurance, and the mother's contribution would still be basically nothing. Lord help the man if the child goes to public school, is young and food doesn't cost a whole bunch, and there is no fiscal accountability required for the mother...

As long as "being there" didn't consist solely of being forced to make child payments all that time. If that's the case, then the man who is in fact not the father should be absolved forthwith. The only question that would remain then is how to tell if the man who was initially thought to be the father had actually become a significant factor in the lives of the children beyond simply being a funding source. And answering that question really ought to involve a little institution that often has been all too absent from child custody and divorce proceedings: juries. A finding against the man in a proceeding like this can obvioulsy have a profound impact on his life, and so he needs to have the right to be heard by a jury of his peers, instead of just a judge with a social agenda.

1. Should the Bradley Amendment be repealed?Yes

2. What, if anything, should replace it, and should it be done at the state or federal level?The aspect of discharging child support debt in bankruptcy would have to be addressed at the federal level. Eliminating such debt in other proceedings could be addressed at the state level.

3. Is there any reason at all why a man who was proved not to be the father, and who never made any other voluntary commitment to the child, should in any way be financially liable for supporting the child?Define "voluntary commitment" to the child? If he is not the father and has not legally adopted the child in full knowledge that the kid isn't his, then he should have no obligation, period.

4. Should men who are responsible for child support payments have any say at all in how the money is spent? If so, to what extent?Tough one. I don't believe they should be able to say "it must be spent thus", but they should have the ability to challenge how its being spent, and such challenges should have teeth. Spurious challenges should be dealt with firmly, and frivolous or wasteful spending by the custodial parent should also be dealt with firmly.

In the interests of accuracy, it should be pointed out that women also find themselves paying child support. While they don't find themselves directly victims of paternity fraud, the other conditions that can result in accumulating substantial arrears on their obligations (they aren't "debts", they're "arrears") can affect them.

*******************************************************************

Rent is a child related expense. Some transportation costs are also child related.

Not so, Kimosabe. First, divorce law varies from state to state, with some states defaulting to joint custody, others not. Even in the state's that default to joint custody, there is virtually no enforcement of custody provisions. If the custodial parent jacks the visitation around, or otherwise inteferes, the NCP is SOL.

Perhaps in your state the changes are being made, but as noted, unless there's also enforcement, the changes aren't worth as much as you might think.

The basis of child support is the biological responsibility (often merely assumed). To say that because someone has assisted another, they can be legally compelled to do so, is deeply contrary to our values.

********************************************************************

It does.

As noted, we have a provision in the Constitution which forbids debtor's prisons. However, when you're tossed into jail for failing to pay child support, its not the "debt" for which you're being imprisoned. You're being imprisoned for contempt of court. Such is merely a legal fiction, but it has yet to be overturned.

Unfortunately, whether or not the child is actually adequately provided for is not a consideration.

********************************************************************
One thing that's not being considered in this discussion is the direct cost that the NCP bears, and whether or not it should be considered as well. Taking the cliched non-custodial father, lets look at his costs aside from child support.

Rather than a 1 bedroom apartment, he rents a 3 bedroom house so his kids have someplace to call their own, and they have a yard. That's an additional $300 a month he spends. He pays about $100 a month in additional utilities and groceries. Rather than a compact pickup, he has a full size extended cab pickup, another $200 a month in insurance, car payment, and gas. This doesn't even consider money that he spends on entertainment with the kids, clothing, medical insurance (many states require the NCP to carry health insurance on the kids), and travel related to visitation.

None of these costs are considered when support is set, but they are costs for supporting the child. A rational means of setting support would have to consider the total cost borne by both parents, and then split that. This is a large part of why many folks oppose defaulting to joint custody, because if custody is joint, then costs are also incurred by both parties, and there's much less opportunity for income transfers to the custodial parent. Problem is, how do we account for marginal costs? Take the father's extended cab truck. Do we calculate based on a Ford Ranger XL as the "base line"? What if he chooses to drive a Cadillac Escalade? That's a $40k truck, whereas a Chevy Silverado at $22k would meet the functional needs as well? Does he get "credit" for the extra 18k? Same thing can happen with the mother. Getting the kids clothes at Saks 5th Avenue rather than JC Penney (or even Wal-Mart), driving a Lexus SUV rather than a Dodge minivan, etc...

'Tis a mess, and 'twould be best if in concert with completely revamping the CS regime, we also revamp family and welfare law as a whole so there's far less incentive for folks to become single parents.

1. Should the Bradley Amendment be repealed?

Absolutely not.

2. What, if anything, should replace it, and should it be done at the state or federal level?

If anything, enforcement on this should be strengthened to ensure that deadbeat parents who shuck off their responsibilities are actually punished and not just slapped on the wrist. This includes those who cheat the system and work "under the table" to avoid showing income.

3. Is there any reason at all why a man who was proved not to be the father, and who never made any other voluntary commitment to the child, should in any way be financially liable for supporting the child?

Obviously not. Even if the man has been paying and later finds out that the child is not his it should fall to the mother to then find the biological parent, IMO.

4. Should men who are responsible for child support payments have any say at all in how the money is spent? If so, to what extent?

I agree with Bikerdad that it shouldn't be so much a "say" in how the money is spent, but obviously if the children are dressed in rags and not being fed properly while the custodial parent is living a lavish lifestyle, that is an issue that the NCP should be able to challenge in court.



No, it shouldn't go to pay for the mother's lifestyle, that's what alimony is for. However, on the flip side of this token, why should children live in virtual squalor while the NCP gets to live high off the hog? To drive my point home, I'll share with you my experience growing up with a single mother.

My father made pretty decent money when I was a child. There was a joint savings account with thousands of dollars in it, and my mother stayed at home with my brother and myself. When, after 10 years of marriage my father decided to stray and cheat, the marriage, for obvious reasons, came to an end. So my father cleaned out all of the savings, took the car and left my mother jobless, carless, and with the mortgage and all of the bills due. He was able to hire a lawyer for the divorce proceedings, and she was not.

It suffices to say that despite having a decent salary (about $50k/year in the mid/late 80's), he paid a whopping $200/month in child support for two of us, an amount that didn't even cover 1/2 of the rent she had to pay after he and his lawyer sold the house out from under her. Then he would complain that she was unable to stay home with us. (For reasons I shouldn't have to spell out, she had to work 2 jobs, both full time.)

So, I grew up in a dumpy little apartment dressed in rags (mostly hand-me-downs), and several times, my mother had to go on welfare so that we didn't wind up starving to death or having to live in her Chevette. On the rare occasions that my father bothered to visit, I got to see his brand new Harley-Davidson motorcycles, his new cars, hear about his vacations to exotic locations, and my poor mother could barely keep food on the table. So frankly, I have very little sympathy if a guy has to shell out 20% of his income so his kids can partake of a similar lifestyle to the one they would have if he were the custodial parent.

There's one sure-fire way to never have to pay "too much" child support. Don't have any kids!

By any chance did you happen to read any of my introductory comments, or click on the link? Would you say that Schlafly is misrepresenting the effects of the law, or do you think those effects she describes are actually a good thing?

I suggest you look over what she has to say. There's a world of difference between imposing legitimate obligations and doing the things she mentions. And I hope you're not taking out your anger at your father on all the fathers who get caught up in this system, regardless of how much their actions may differ from his.

I believe that she does misrepresent the overall effect of the law. Firstly, whether or not you can afford a lawyer, you can still go to court to have the amount you pay reduced based on certain circumstances such as a loss of income. Even if you're in prison, you still have access to the courts in order to do this. These men know that they're accumulating this debt, and if they don't use legal means to prevent it from happening, then they have to deal with the consequences.

According to the statistic she, herself presented, 70% of men in LA county can't even be bothered to go to court for their child support hearing. Under these circumstances the court is left with little alternative but to set the amount with no input from them, and one can hardly fault the law for that. These men are informed of the hearings; the courts go to great lengths to ensure that these fathers are notified so they can state their case. What this is indicative of is that many fathers don't seem to take the responsibility of having children very seriously and that's exactly what Bradley was enacted to combat.

I already suggested that in cases of "paternity fraud" I can agree that the law needs to be altered to go after the biological father, rather than the man that's been duped into paying.

The amendment was passed because of an epidemic of fathers who skip out on their kids and pay little to nothing while single moms struggle, often with the help of state aid to raise their kids. Not only is it unfair to those mothers, but to all of us who work and pay taxes to provide said state aid, that these fathers got/get away with this.

The way she makes it sound, men are just randomly thrown in prison for non-payment. This is simply not the case. A man who shows he's making every effort to pay his child support, and has worked within the system to have the amount he pays adjusted as circumstances dictate is not going to go to jail. The men who are jailed for contempt of court or have their drivers' licenses revoked, etc... have made little or no effort at all to pay anything, nor have they made any attempt to work within the system to alter their obligations, and for them I have no sympathy at all.

One final point: If you have a large "Bradley debt", it's pretty likely that you haven't been paying as you were ordered to do, and if you had, or had gone through the system to adjust for income, no such debt would exist. Who does one fault? I opt to fault the one who has neglected to meet their legal obligations, not the law that sets them.

You have your own personal horror story and I have mine. I am a father who was thrown in jail for non-payment. I did work within the system. I had paid 85% of all ordered child support but could not longer keep up. I was wrung dry. The system is broken. I hired a CPA as well as my attorney to explain my finances in detail. I even took it to appeals court. It did not matter. The courts were not up to the challenge.

Blanket statements are frowned upon here on America's Debate because they are not constructive. It should even be more frowned upon to make law based on blanket thinking. Because some father's are irresponsible should not make it law that all fathers are irresponsible. Law should not create problems were none exists.

The only thing I think we can logically conclude from our two experiences is that the courts are suspect in their ability to fairly apply the law. This Bradley law does not correct this. The Bradley law is blanket law and should be removed.

Yeah, sure you do... how are you going to come up with the court fees?

And, of course, we have gems such as this:

In 1990, Lockheed employee and divorced father Bobby Sherrill was captured in Kuwait and spent nearly five harrowing months as an Iraqi hostage.

When Mr. Sherrill was released, he returned to his joyful, weeping family in North Carolina.

The next night, the sheriff came to arrest Mr. Sherrill. The charge: not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage. - Washington Times

What "legal means" were available to Mr. Sherrill?
Even you refer to it as "debt". Imprisonment for debt is unconstitutional, period.

As for "knowing", sometimes, but quite often not, because they may not even know they have a child!


and, according to the Los Angeles Times, roughly 70 percent of fathers in Los Angeles County are not present when the court (not biology) rules on paternity and irreducible monthly obligations are set in concrete As you can see, she was referencing paternity proceedings, not child support.


BULLHOCKEY! In Los Angeles County, over 70% of paternity establishments are done on a default basis.[5] The DA’s office estimates that more than 350 innocent men are incorrectly named in child support orders every month.[6] This means the alleged fathers were not present. Very often, the alleged father was never notified.

[5]Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1998, B1.
[6] Los Angeles Times, Oct. 11, 1998, A27.



Clearly, you have no personal experience with the family courts.

Theoretically, the basis of the Bradley Amendment is that the failure of the non-custodial parent to contribute is making it more difficult for the custodial parent to raise the children. If being the divorced single mother is so difficult, why do the suicide rates for non-custodial father's skyrocket after divorce, and custodial mother's don't budge? Why do men kill themselves on the courthouse steps?

Others on this thread have dealt with that particular point. But there are others she brings up as well. She says that there's no requirement that the money be spent on the children. That would imply that the father himself has no say in how it's spent. She also says that bankruptcy can not alleviate the debt mandated by the Bradley law, even if the children are grown up. Are these misrepresentations as well?

The best thing any member on this board could ever do for families in thier lifetime is to get your state to have TRUE joint custodylike Alaska.

No one parent has to be "primary" custodian.

I have been on both sides of this issue now- as a child, and as a divorced father of two.

I have the kids 5 days a week, she has them on the weekend.

The courts HAVE gotten better at awarding fathers custody- if just a bit.

It is still very, very skewed towards the mother- a mother practicaly has to walk in drunk and naked to lose- and it is plain not right.

The entire child support system is not helping children, families or the US- it is just simply a money grubbing excercise by the feds very similar to debtors prison in merry ol' tyme England.

I am a bit bitter about this whole thing- so I won't comment too much- but the bradly amendment should be burned at the stake IMHO- and I was a victim of it as a child- not as an adult.

In answer to your first question, I already said that if the children are not being properly cared for, the NCP should have legal recourse to prevent this from happening.

I'll go further, as several people have pointed out that there are currently no "outs" for extreme circumstances, such as being held hostage by a rogue tyrant, to say that alterations need to be made to account for this sort of thing.

As to the question of bankruptcy not alleviating the debt even if the children are grown, I have to say that that is a positive aspect of the law. If you've not paid your child support during the time that the children were growing up, and the custodial parent has made all of the sacrifices, worked multiple jobs and barely scraped by, why should you not have to pay her (or him) what you owe?



The suicide rate among men is higher than that of women in general; about 4:1 to be exact. Source I've been unable to find any statistic to suggest that the rate among single divorced fathers skyrockets after divorce. Would you have a link to some hard data on this?



Ok, so you paid a CPA and an attorney to explain why you couldn't pay your child support. Just out of curiosity, how big of a dent would it have made in your child support debt if you'd taken the money you paid them and for court fees and applied it to what you owed? To be totally honest, based solely on what you've stated here, if I were a judge I would have had difficulty not holding you in contempt myself. But obviously, I don't know all of the details of your specific situation.

-

In answer for those who bring up the paternity hearings, I have to agree that if you're not the biological or adoptive parent, you should be absolved of any liability whatsoever, even if ordered to pay previously. That is a change I can definitely agree needs to be made. But while a few changes need to be made, to say that the entire law needs to be scrapped is just plain wrong. Sure, it'd be great for NCPs who could once again have their obligations forgiven by sympathetic judges, but what happens to the children? Aren't they the primary concern, or is that out the window?

Men and women that have not dealt with the "system" as we have it today can not know or understand the difficulties.

If I were to wave a magic wand and change it- and props to Bikerdad- I feel ya bro - I would end all child support. It wouldn't even exist anymore.

Instead, = both sets of parents would have to maintain seperate homes for the children, and split actual costs of raising the child, offset by income disparity, and there would be no court order for money at all, unless one parent, in due process of court, innocent beyond reasonable doubt, could be proven to be negligent. Court costs for either parent would be free up until the second complaint proves baseless, then all usual court costs apply.

This can, and should be, exempted from cases of proven abuse or negligence.

Why? Because kids do better with fathers.

Men have one very, very fundamental difference than women, that probably insures most men never live forever in an abusive relationship (yes, women abuse men, and since men dont report this, and I have seen SOO MANY abusive women, I would hazard a guess that is about the same as men abusing women) -

We simply run away from pain. If it hurts- leave.

So, after some time of pain after pain- we avoid the pain.

Many just pay the money and play the "visitation" game until she manipulates that to death as well- and then, finally sign the adoption papers.

That is what happened to my father.

I think joint custody should be not only the default, but almost unavoidable without both parents consent- say, I don't want the kids and she can just have them or some other horrible person would do!

Both parents should just be forced to be parents- NOT walking wallets that the system treats men as now.

What if the child is being reasonably well cared for, but the CP is still wringing the NCP dry in order to support her own freespending ways? Is that just?


At that point, it definitely should be no different from any other type of debt between two persons, subject to the same rules and limitations that would normally apply in all those other cases. There's no justification at that point for putting into the extra-special hyper-emergency category of "child support".

Stefan, I've read your posts on this subject and understand that you were living in poverty while your divorced father was living a life of luxury. If your father had been poor however, would you still feel the same vengeance towards NCP fathers?

There is no question that children should be adequately provided for after a divorce and that both parents should share the sacrifices. But anytime the State does any form of wealth redistribution, it must take into consideration the person who is paying. From reading other posts on this thread, my impression is that the State is literally willing to throw the father out on the street in order to feed the child. That might work for the short run. But if a man can barely feed himself, all the lawyers in the world cannot make him pay child support for long.

If a man really is too poor to impregnate his girlfriend and support a family, that man should be given the option of going to a redhouse to take care of his physical needs.

Suicide rates double for divorced men

Glenn Sacks - Suicide on the Courthouse Steps
The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major:

"Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts."


Divorce and Suicide in Norway

Marital Breakdown and Suicide Info - Australian Study