Dr. Phil: Forced to be a Deadbeat Dad.

By Lena Trondson • March 4, 2009

On February 27, 2009, the show “Forced to be a Deadbeat Dad” on Dr. Phil aired. It is about time that someone tried to shine some light on the current family court issue, and the increase in “deadbeat dads” or rather “driven away dads” in the last 20 years since the implementation of the Bradley Amendment. There is much to be said about child support and both sides deserves to be heard;however, the system and the society have not given non-custodial parents a fair chance. People have been labeled “deadbeat dads” because the court system and some custodial parents have walked over their civil rights.

The definition of deadbeat parent is a non-custodial parent who willingly fails to pay court ordered child support.

According to the statistics, only 4% of non-custodial “deadbeat dads” actually fail to pay support even though they have the monetary means to do so. The rest of the “deadbeat dads” are labeled so due to the fact that they can not pay court ordered child support because of lay-offs, injuries, deployments, and move away custodial parents. But mostly, they are labeled this because of unforgiving courts, the incentives from government to collect as much support as possible to make more money, and vindictive custodial parents who do not have the children and their father’s relationship in their best interest but more so an interest for monetary gain.

Some custodial parents rather send their child’s father to jail because they are unable to pay the full amount of child support. I actually heard a custodial parent say that a fifty dollar check after years of “selfish neglect” (in her opinion) is worth nothing…even if the custodial parent was aware of the fact that the reason the non-custodial parent couldn’t fulfill their obligations was due to a disability and the fact that she moved thousands of miles away with the children – making it even harder for the non-custodial parent to afford visitation. The same custodial parent refused to work out a temporary change in support because of unforeseen events and would rather send the same non-custodial parent to jail and take away his driver’s license. What message does that send to their children?

I am not proclaiming that monetary support is not important because it is. However, what would these families have done if they were still together as a family unit and one parent became unemployed or injured?

They would adjust the spending accordingly but non-custodial parents do not get that luxury. Their support is a set standard of living. The society and courts have made divorce a lucrative business – for many custodial parents, it actually increases their standard of living to separate.

To quote the guests on Dr. Phil’s show “Forced to be a Deadbeat Dad,”
“Why does his ex-wife have a right to rely on a constant level of support even after a divorce?” Mel asks Lis.

“This is what the unit decided when they got married and when they had children,” Lis says
“We also decided that I would see my kids every day, that I would have a nice house, and there would be someone home taking care of my kids, and that’s all gone now,” Bill says

The bottom line is that living situations change due to unforseen events during a life time, and it is ludicrous to state that just because you have children it can’t happen to you or it would be unfair to the children if their standard of living would decrease. I grew up as the youngest child of five with low-income parents, and it didn’t leave much for extravagant gifts or clothes but I grew up feeling loved, and had a close relationship with my mother AND my father. In my opinion, a relationship, love, and time with both of your parents are worth more than all the money in the world.