Deadbeat Parents on Pizza Boxes

[Lawmoe]

The national news program Fox and Friends will be addressing the pros and cons of "deadbeat parents" on pizza boxes tomorrow. I believe the program will run in the morning. I will be on along with Cynthia Brown, executive director of the Butler County Child Enforcement Agency. Write to the program with your view.

The A.P sent out the story by wire which can be read at the link below.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261051,00.html

[mistoffolees]

My only concern is accuracy. As long as they can ensure accuracy and have recourse for someone who's wrongly publicized, I would agree with it.

The problem is that there are so many false accusations (much like false accusations of abuse). They need to find a way to weed those out and give the accused sufficient opportunity to set the record straight.

Addition:
I thought about this some more and there's an inherent flaw in the concept that makes it completely impractical.

If you allow for the CP to get the 'deadbeat parent' put onto pizza boxes without giving the parent the ability to contest it, then it will be abused (I can already see my stbx claiming that I'm a deadbeat because she's only gotten 65% of my paycheck instead of the 90% she wants).

If, on the other hand, you require that the 'deadbeat parent' be allowed to defend themselves and show that they've paid appropriate amounts, you need to be able to contact them. If you can contact them, the state can attach their wages if there are arrears.

I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are, they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially false accusations. If you do know where they are, you should be able to collect the money.

[wysiwyg]

"I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are, they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially false accusations."

However, on the reciprocal end, would it be fair to say that if the paying parent can be labled on a pizza box, can not the receiving parent be labeld as well?  I mean - for instance in our case, we have never been found in contempt, but BM has been found for violations ranging from giving the school fasified information (not telling them the child had a father) to visitain denials, to leaving the state and leaving the child with anyone but the father, and 6 times for refusing to obey the courts orders.  

No comment necessary, just a thought to ponder on...........

[Kent]

This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).

Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?

First off, certainly not mothers.

Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child support, is labeled a deadbeat.

And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do so because they can't.
If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay, you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed to go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies from the PBFH), then what do you do?

Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who make plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear. Parents with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
And post their faces on billboards if you want to.

But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their kids, or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3 jobs and still cannot pay CS in full.

Kent!

[mistoffolees]

>This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat
>dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).
>
>Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?
>
>First off, certainly not mothers.
>
>Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child
>support, is labeled a deadbeat.
>
>And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do so
>because they can't.
>If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay,
>you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
>If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed to
>go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
>If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies from
>the PBFH), then what do you do?
>
>Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who make
>plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear. Parents
>with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
>And post their faces on billboards if you want to.
>
>But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their kids,
>or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3 jobs
>and still cannot pay CS in full.
>

How do you fairly decide who to go after and who not to go after? Someone has to make an arbitrary decision - and arbitrary decisions are bad.

As I said, the only fair way to do this is if people have a chance to defend themselves (innocent until proven guilty, right?). If you know where they are so they can defend themselves, you can collect the money. If you don't know where they are, then they can't defend themselves.

My concern is that wtihout appropriate protection, it will end up just like the accusations of child abuse. For child abuse, you DO have the right to defend yourself, but the percentage of false claims is still huge. In this case, since you don't have the ability to defend yourself, the misuse will be even worse.

I'm dealing with a stbx who has already made one false claim of sexual abuse against her first husband and is threatening something similar against me. In spite of the fact that she has had about 60% of our joint income for the past 5 months, she's telling everyone she knows that I'm starving her and never pay her anything. If this proposal were enacted, my face would be on a pizza box tomorrow - completely falsely - and would destroy my career.

[gemini3]

If your STBX is threatening you with a fals allegation, you need to do something about it NOW.  Don't wait - because once she does it your life will never be the same.  It's one of those things that will always make people question things - even if you can manager to prove that it never happened.  If you don't have a lawyer, get one now.  Trust me, you don't want to be playing defense against this.

[mistoffolees]

>If your STBX is threatening you with a fals allegation, you
>need to do something about it NOW.  Don't wait - because once
>she does it your life will never be the same.  It's one of
>those things that will always make people question things -
>even if you can manager to prove that it never happened.  If
>you don't have a lawyer, get one now.  Trust me, you don't
>want to be playing defense against this.

I have a lawyer involved and it's well taken care of. In fact, if she makes the false accusations now, that would give me the grounds I need for sole custody.

[janM]

I heard about this last week, and there is one other thing to consider...what about the child(ren) who sees his parent's picture on that pizza box?

ps...where've you been, Lawmoe?  Good to see you back. :)

[Jade]

>My only concern is accuracy. As long as they can ensure
>accuracy and have recourse for someone who's wrongly
>publicized, I would agree with it.
>
>The problem is that there are so many false accusations (much
>like false accusations of abuse). They need to find a way to
>weed those out and give the accused sufficient opportunity to
>set the record straight.
>
>Addition:
>I thought about this some more and there's an inherent flaw in
>the concept that makes it completely impractical.
>
>If you allow for the CP to get the 'deadbeat parent' put onto
>pizza boxes without giving the parent the ability to contest
>it, then it will be abused (I can already see my stbx claiming
>that I'm a deadbeat because she's only gotten 65% of my
>paycheck instead of the 90% she wants).
>
>If, on the other hand, you require that the 'deadbeat parent'
>be allowed to defend themselves and show that they've paid
>appropriate amounts, you need to be able to contact them. If
>you can contact them, the state can attach their wages if
>there are arrears.
>
>I can't see any scenario where one could fairly put a parent's
>picture onto a pizza box. If you don't know where they are,
>they have no chance to defend themselves against potentially
>false accusations. If you do know where they are, you should
>be able to collect the money.


If one doesn't know where they are, chances are very good that they aren't paying their child support at all.  Nor are they seeing the child(ren).  

I think that it is a good idea for those parents who are thousands of dollars in arrears.  

[Jade]

>>This is not about deadbeat parents, this is about deadbeat
>>dads (even though the article was written gender-neutral).
>>
>>Who is labeled a deadbeat parent?
>>
>>First off, certainly not mothers.
>>
>>Second, even a father who pays 99% of his ordered child
>>support, is labeled a deadbeat.
>>
>>And most men who do not pay all of the ordered CS, don't do
>so
>>because they can't.
>>If you get laid off, and have to take a job with lesser pay,
>>you can't make your CS payments in full anymore.
>>If you only make a few bucks, and half of that is supposed
>to
>>go to CS, then you can't survive anymore.
>>If your CS is set higher than your income (based on lies
>from
>>the PBFH), then what do you do?
>>
>>Go ahead, and find the real deadbeats; dads AND moms who
>make
>>plenty of money, but just refuse to pay and disappear.
>Parents
>>with a good education, who refuse to get (or hold) a job.
>>And post their faces on billboards if you want to.
>>
>>But don't go after dads who are not allowed to see their
>kids,
>>or can't see their kids because they have to work 2 or 3
>jobs
>>and still cannot pay CS in full.
>>
>
>How do you fairly decide who to go after and who not to go
>after? Someone has to make an arbitrary decision - and
>arbitrary decisions are bad.
>
>As I said, the only fair way to do this is if people have a
>chance to defend themselves (innocent until proven guilty,
>right?). If you know where they are so they can defend
>themselves, you can collect the money. If you don't know where
>they are, then they can't defend themselves.
>
>My concern is that wtihout appropriate protection, it will end
>up just like the accusations of child abuse. For child abuse,
>you DO have the right to defend yourself, but the percentage
>of false claims is still huge. In this case, since you don't
>have the ability to defend yourself, the misuse will be even
>worse.
>
>I'm dealing with a stbx who has already made one false claim
>of sexual abuse against her first husband and is threatening
>something similar against me. In spite of the fact that she
>has had about 60% of our joint income for the past 5 months,
>she's telling everyone she knows that I'm starving her and
>never pay her anything. If this proposal were enacted, my face
>would be on a pizza box tomorrow - completely falsely - and
>would destroy my career.


Are you paying the support through the courts?  If so, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.  It should be the agency that collects child support that makes the decision to put the non-paying person on the pizza box, not the CP for the above reason.