Child Support and Fathers

Your editorial (“The Case of the Deadbeat Dads,” Sept. 11) correctly saddles deadbeat dads with the lion’s share of responsibility for the impoverishment of women and children in this country. But pending federal legislation concerning interstate flight to avoid payment of child support is not the only legislative controversy regarding fathers who shirk their responsibility.

In the last California legislative session, Sen. Gary Hart sponsored a bill that would have eliminated a provision in our law, unique in the nation, which permits fathers to reduce child support payments in proportion to the time they spend with their children. This odd provision permits a dad who sees his kids on weekends to reduce his child support payments even though he bears hardly any responsibility for the children’s ongoing clothing, housing, medical and dietary needs. This “deduction” is one reason that, in the 50 states, California ranked 49th in court-ordered child support levels.

After Hart’s sensible bill was signed by Gov. Pete Wilson, the outcry from “father’s rights” groups and, amazingly, from male judges and attorneys, was loud, long, wounded and angry. Because so many men objected, and women didn’t have a chance to support the new idea because it hadn’t even taken effect yet, Hart felt constrained to water down his own bill. The result is a new and less stringent version that went into effect on July 1.

Now, even that weakened attempt to bring economic equity to child support is in danger. The weaker version of the law allows the average non-custodial dad to keep about 60% of the total parental income instead of the 70%-plus which went to his personal use under the older provision. That result, not exactly equitable, but better, ought to be desirable. But no: Now, men want to remove the weakened provisions and Hart’s desk has thousands of letters demanding that he reverse even the diluted version.

At the same time, Sen. Charles Calderone has gleefully offered to draft a bill to restore everything to the old system, so that California’s absent dads can return to paying as little as possible and the state’s judicially ordered child support can return to its former status as all but the worst in the nation.

Every legislator must recognize that for every complaining father who (national statistics reveal) spends more on car payments than on child support, there is at least one child and one woman suffering. The outcry from men about support payments is a lobbying effort against adequate health and welfare for children.

Paying for the care of one’s own children is a family value that everyone in California should support.

SHELIA JAMES KUEHL

Managing Director

California Women’s Law Center