I will bow to nobody in my despising fathers (parents in general, but I’ll be self-sexist and say fathers) who refused to support their kids. If there is one responsibility I feel is paramount, it’s taking care of your own in that way. In some ways, it doesn’t even matter what the custodial arrangements are — ultimately, it’s not about him and her, it’s about taking care of the kid.
I am more than pleased, then, that changes in the law over the last few years have made it easier for federal and state governments to stick it to deadbeat dads. Wage garnishment, license suspensions, the whole nine yards. Stick it to ’em, sez I.
Except …
… except that, in the process, the government seems a bit over-incented to find deadbeat dads one way or another. Which means that a lot of innocent guys are getting branded with the label and finding themselves in a Kafkaesque world where things like “proof” and “due process” are meaningless sounds.
The issue of enforcing parental responsiblity is far too important to allow it to be discredited in this way — especially by tarnishing it with the sense that the government is more interested in saving money than in doing the right thing by either the child or the man who’s been accused.
Luckily, I haven’t had to experience being a weekend father. However, I have quite a few friends who, for various reasons, have accepted that role. It seems to me that until the family courts become more even keeled when dividing up parental duties, more and more fathers will be labeled. The court system in our country is still, in my mind, unfavorably biased towards the mother in custody and child support cases.
I certainly agree that much more needs to be done to give non-custodial parents (usually fathers) a fair shake in access to the kids.
But that’s beside the point, to my mind. Bitter, vindictive, or nasty behavior on the custodial parent’s part does not justify lack of support to the child. That’s a responsibility indepedent of any other benefit of having the kid in the first place. IMO.