Deadbeat Dad myth
Forums:
Found these facts while looking at the website of a family lawyer near me:
Seventy-nine point six percent of custodial mothers receive a support award, while only 29.6 percent of custodial fathers receive a support award.
Forty-six point nine percent of non-custodial mothers totally default on support, while only 26.9 percent of non-custodial fathers totally default on support.
The rate for default on CS for mothers is nearly twice that of the default rate for fathers, yet you rarely hear about deadbeat moms. Just thought this was interesting. Lots of stereotypes surrounding divorced and remarried families with most of negativity directed toward stepmothers and divorced dads.
Why do bio moms seem to get all of the sympathy?
i also hear stories about
i also hear stories about dead beat moms using child support for boob jobs and other cosmetic surgery.
in the case of dh and his x (x had an affair with a married man and then married her lover when he divorced his wife she was a home wrecker)
bm was buying new cars every two years or so. cars for her and new husband. then bm actually called the payroll office where dh worked in order to get the goods on his financial situation. thank goodness the payroll clerk knew dh and refused to disclose the confidential information.
it happened that dh wanted to take dh back to court for more cs money.
bm saved no money at all for any of the skids. dh begged her to save a little for each skid in a small trust fund but she did not.
hows that for a dead beat mom?
I'm in the same boat. BM
I'm in the same boat. BM complains incessantly about how DH doesn't pay her enough, but she earns a six figure salary (at least twice what DH makes) and she has saved nothing for the kids. When she was married to DH she used to spend between $3000-$5000 a month at the casino. Her current husband also loves to gamble, so who knows how much she is spending at the casino. I think they go at least every Wednesday and also many times on the weekends.
DH got a $60k inheritance from his grandmother when his kids were toddlers. He put it into a college account for them. BM raided it to pay taxes for her business (which she didn't pay throughout the year even though she's an accountant). Can't wait until she tells DH he's a deadbeat when she has no money for the kids to go to college.
My ex still uses my
My ex still uses my substantial child support for anything but the kids. Her and new hubby go on cruises, meanwhile my kids have second hand and third hand clothes and I end up buying them new clothes during my visitation
bm in my case used cs money
bm in my case used cs money to pay mortgage on a house she bought with the man she married the one she was cheating with while married to dh.
dh begged bm to put a little money away each month for each child so they would have a little money when she eventually booted each one out when they turned eighteen. no such luck.
This is really interesting.
This is really interesting. Thank you for the information.
Because even with your
Because even with your example.. there are total number wise TWICE as many men that totally default than women. Because they are overwhelmingly the larger number of people that pay CS.. even a smaller percentage still ends up being MORE men than women in the total population.
Also, I would hazzard a guess that with men being higher income earners that they also have a much larger dollar value per default than women (since things are based on wages and men earn more)
So even if the "rate" is lower.. the dollars involved and number of men is still a larger number than women.
If you're looking in
If you're looking in absolutes, yes, the number of men might be higher, but the relative rates matter as well, especially since the vast majority of custodial fathers receive no child support.
Also, I'd challenge the assumption that men are always the higher income earners in the relationship.. I don't think that holds true any more.
I meant in absolute numbers
I meant in absolute numbers which would also be why more people hear about deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms.
While the "rate" may be higher for women defaulting, there are still head and shoulder more men who are on the hook so even a lower percentage of them still makes men the overwhelming majority in people who default.
and there is a gender pay gap for FT women vs men in the workplace a man made 860/wk vs 706 for women. that means that on average men made 8,000 more a week than women. Statistics do say that the gap is narrower when people are younger, but that would also show the gap that gets created when we get further away from entry level and low wage earning jobs and into a further career path. The gap arises for a variety of reasons including relative salaries of male dominated vs female dominated fields (think engineering vs nursing etc) also the fact that women are more likely to derail and take time off their career track to have kids and are generally the primary care givers to kids in their homes.. that interferes with upward mobility.
So, while things have improved, the guys still make more on average.. so they tend to be the CS payers and women are still more likely to be the primary caregivers. Of course there are exceptions, I have known several women who have husbands who stay at home with the kids or work lesser jobs.
But, the fact remains, we are much more likely to know a man who has slacked on his CS duties than we are to know a woman who has. There are just a lot more men out there that pay CS.
"But, the fact remains, we
"But, the fact remains, we are much more likely to know a man who has slacked on his CS duties than we are to know a woman who has. There are just a lot more men out there that pay CS."
Sure. We are also more likely to know far more men who are current on their CS than who defaulted. Rates matter. If more women were to be ordered to pay CS, the statistics would lead one to conclude more of them would default, as a percentage, than men. And because CS is most often based on income, the gender pay gap doesn't explain the disparity. Women are often ordered to pay even less than a man would with the same exact income because of another gender bias.
The myth of the deadbeat dad persists because of more gender biases that run deep within society. Mothers are put on pedestals and it's not her "job" to provide, unfortunately, is the prevailing attitude.
Sure.. but again, my point
Sure.. but again, my point was to try to explain the "myth" and it's persistence.
The fact of the matter is that 1/4 of men ordered to pay CS have total failure to pay.. and that means that there are more that may be partially behind as well.. that adds up to a lot of people and ancedotal evidence that there are deadbeat dads.
Of course, people know there are "deadbeat moms" too.. but generally, due to the relative instance of mothers being the primary caregivers.. they are seen as more often the sympathetic victims of not getting enough to raise their kids.. the few (in absolute numbers again) appear to be much more an exception than a rule.
The reasons why women don't pay their CS is of course probably as varied as why men don't... incarceration, poor financial decisions...substance abuse etc...
Given the fact that women are much more likely to either have full or 50/50 custody, it probably is the people who have glaring issues that prevent them from stepping up to have custody is also a reason why they can't pay their ordered CS...
The courts and judges also
The courts and judges also seem to have much more sympathy for women who have "glaring issues." Men aren't given any excuses.
Good point about the
Good point about the absolutes driving the myth.
I would love to know how many custodial dads were entitled to CS but didn't seek it. I can't believe that more than 2/3rds of custodial mothers make too little money to pay anything.
When my DH got divorced, he made less than 1/3rd of what BM made and he still pays child support - even with the deduction for health insurance, which he also provides. He didn't ask for alimony or any portion of her business (even though they used his inheritance money to pay some business expenses and he took on more of the child care during the kids early years). He couldn't afford a lawyer, so I'm not sure if he would have asked for these things if he had one, but I think he knew he was entitled and didn't ask. He wanted 50/50, but couldn't afford his own place, so was left with EOWE. His salary has since gone up, but BM still makes roughly 2.5 times more than he does, especially now that someone bought her business, so she's a partner in a bigger business. Recently, he asked her to consider 50/50 and told me that if she agreed, he wasn't going to ask her for child support. I know that's just one anecdotal piece of evidence, but it made me wonder if men who have 50/50 or more time with their children are less likely to ask for child support or less likely to make a case out of not receiving it. This would tie back to the "man as the provider" stereotype.
Glad you brought this subject
Glad you brought this subject up StrugglingSM. We have a great example of the dead beat Mom with our BM. I have asked this question too. Why the sympathy for the non cs paying non custodial moms but vicious attacks on dads who don't pay or are not deemed involved enough in their offsprings lives?
Our BM left my DH with both kids when High Functioning autistic SS was 7 and SD (pas'd out now) was 12. Call herself a mother? she never phoned once to wish him goodnight, over the years has Pas'd the daughter against her father. SD went to live with BM at age 16 and now is vindictively estranged from her father. This woman has basically done nothing for those kids other than have them over eowe. Didn't go to parents evenings, never held parties when birthdays on her time, constantly told SS that he didnt have to come over to her or visit her 'if he didn't like *insert whatever*' or didnt do what she wanted. She spent her time watching tv or surfing social media sites or went to bed and left kids to fend for them selves. Remember, this is a child with aggression issues amongst other things. We have never received a single iota of support regarding his special needs from her, in fact she has been difficult, obstructive and vindictive to us.
So now we have the situation where SD is aged out and (SD is almost 24) BM needs to be paying her cs for SS18 (still in school). CS does not stop until 25 here unless they leave school and have a full time job. He will not finish school for at least another 2 years. In order to expediate this my DH needs to have the date that SD started work or indeed an admittance that she has. She is not in school and has not been for a while. Extended family one of which is DH's sister who says she is 'frightened' to block SD from her FB says that she is almost certain SD has been working for quite a while. Can we get this information? No way in hell. BM is legally required to tell DH when SD begins work but of course she has not and when he decided to email her and ask if SD was working now a whole load of toxic abuse came his way. BM called, asked 'why do you want to know that!?' (which is kind of obvious tbh) and he just said 'because if so then please re-instate the cs due for SS'. Then she started having a go at him, shouting etc and then her new husband came on the phone threatening DH and calling him names, then SD herself, more crying, wailing and shouting including 'you are taking all my moms money!'
Since then nothing. No money and no idea of whether SD is working or not. Over the years SS got sick of her toxic outbursts and constant threats that he shouldnt come to visit her if *whatever* and stopped wanting to go. He kept running away and eventually we took him to the counsellor to discuss this and it was decided that he knew his mind and didnt want to go there anymore. He was 14.5. Since then BM has hardly bothered with him. No birthday or christmas presents, no calls etc etc. She even went to court to get a document saying he should not go to her anymore stating that she couldnt control him etc.
After DH asked about the cs she then starts acusing him of 'witholding' her contact with SS and 'whispering in his ear etc'. So, how come suddenly now that she is asked to support her own son that suddenly it's all 'you don't let me see him'. The two are not connected legally. Whether he wants to see her and whether he gets to be supported by his NCP are seperate issues. Not in her world.
The CS is very low. It always was. DH had in the beginning in the interests of 'keeping it friendly' agreed to very low CS (about 115 dollars a month for 2 children). She was working, still is, earns more now and now has a husband who shares living costs and in this country this is taken into account (please no one start the argument over if this is right or not. I am on the fence with it myself but it is a legal fact and it is how they calculate cs here) so she is well able to afford what should now with the indexed inflation be $67. Three incomes in one house should make this child's play. SD is probably getting a free ride though, BM cannot afford to put any demands on that girl or expect her to pay her way as she might turn against her. SD is very histrionic and BM just lets her have her way.
BM is obviously aware that DH would have to take her to court to get the information and that will cost him. COST. HIM. There's the problem. She knows this so she plays it. I think that SD has been working for a while - possible over a year and that means she would owe him now about $804 dollars in back cs. I think that is part of the reason for the threats and abuse he got on the phone. They have done this before when things werent going their way, they are bullies and expect DH to back down because of their threats. I hate the fact that either way they win. If he goes to court then it costs him and if he doesnt then they think their bullying has won.
So, that's my idea of a totally DEADBEAT mom. She sickens me. When I brought this subject up a few weeks back I was attacked for being petty, that I should decide between DH chasing this pathetic small amount of money or us having a quiet life. What about the impact on SS when she does not pay towards him? How is that psychologically for him? She has supported SD and DH has always supported SD and would never do what she has done if the boot were on the other foot. But no one brought up that she was a deadbeat mom or even seemed to think that what she was doing was as truly shit as it is.
There most certainly is a double standard in society. One other thing - statistics can he really unreliable but it was interesting to read. I have to say that we need to take into account that men tend to be paying a much higher amount of cs than women ever are and so default is even more likely. IMO
The idea that a divorced
The idea that a divorced mother is just a damsel in distress really makes me angry. As women, we should all be offended that the courts and family services system views us as less capable of providing for ourselves and we should call out women who can provide for themselves, but don't.
If he went to court and she was found at fault, wouldn't your BM be liable for paying his court expenses? That happens in many - but not all - incidents in my state. The person found at fault pays attorney's fees and court fees for the other person.
Court fees yes I think so but
Court fees yes I think so but not his lawyer fees.
because.... vag!na. that's
because.... vag!na.
that's the only reason. the courts and CSE are far more sympathetic to the womb donors because it's the MAN's duty to care for the little (ex)wifey and kids. which parent has actual primary physical custody is irrelevant in the practical enforcement of the orders.
Because uterus and also
Because uterus and also because vagina.
DH's had a CO for CS for over
DH's had a CO for CS for over 2 years for BM. The CS office refuses to help him collect CS from her. When He first filed it with them the lady responded with, "Well we'll see how long that lasts." He was pissed.
I think this is a great topic
I think this is a great topic as there is definitely a double standard.
we recently have SS stb 18 living with us, since august we have not receive any support in fact SO tried to stop support for SD who is 19 in december and shes getting her GED- BM fought with the FRO and wrote a letter stating, "no" CS should still continue for SD even though she is not in a formalized education program- hence no support its a mess.
SS even said, "BMs worried your going to take her to court for support- she cant afford to pay CS"
Hmmm how come its okay that SO who doesnt have money, has to pay, but BM- she doesnt have too...its a fucked up situation- unfortunately, SOs kids will always side with BM even though shes horrible.
Also, higher rates of teen
Also, higher rates of teen pregnancy and delinquincy result from homes that dad isn't significantly involved in (BM is CP).
While I do think there is a
While I do think there is a double standard, I'm curious about the statistics you gave. Did the lawyer cite his/her sources? And did you actually follow up on the links? It IS a lawyer, after all.
You said "support award". Does that mean they are actually paying child support, or just that the court decided they should? I was awarded child support but he doesn't actually pay it.
Women tend to be awarded physical custody/placement unfairly just because they are women. But that means there are far less women out there who would be non custodial parents paying ordered to pay child support. Rather than a percentage, a simple ratio would be more effective....for every __ men who don't pay, there are ___ women who don't pay. Or perhaps that's just how my mind reacts to numbers.
Yes, women as mothers (and honestly, only as mothers) tend to be put on a pedestal, but that also means a longer fall from grace. When women are non custodial parents, a lot of people look at them like they've already given up. The impression is that no good mother would stand to not have physical custody/placement of their child...so if they don't, they must not be a good parent in the first place and not paying child support isn't surprising.
The same can't be said for men. Men aren't assumed to be the primary caregivers and aren't looked at as bad dads if they don't have primary custody/placement. Child support is looked at as the "least they can do" and men are heralded as the best father ever just because they stick to a regular visitation schedule.
I think sexism sucks on both ends, for both genders.
My husband's ex wife has physical placement of the child but she is a total deadbeat loser, IMO. She doesn't work because she "would rather struggle than put her children in daycare". In reality, she's fucked up her whole life and has a criminal record so she can't get a job. I'm glad the state of Texas realized that and refused to up her child support. In my opinion, the child should be living with us and SHE should be paying US child support.