Deadbeat Parents on Pizza Boxes

[Mamacass]

So out of curiousity, my DH's situation, do you think that's reaching?  (My post is a few up labeled "It's a bad idea".)  My DH could have been labeled a deadbeat, when he was keeping his child half the time (at least) and making sure that his child needed (and wanted) for nothing.  

The pizza box thing could be a good idea, and I think the people behind it have good intentions.  But I think it will actually end up doing more harm than good.  Like others have mentioned, there will be people posted on there that shouldn't be, and kids that will be embarassed.  

Does anyone know the criteria that's been set up for what "qualifies" to get their picture on the pizza box?  I'm curious to see how they define deadbeat, and what they use to determine who is a deadbeat before they post the picture.  

[gemini3]

In VA they list the "most wanted child support evaders" on the DCSE website.  A quick check shows there are 17 people on the list.  Of those 17 people there are 2 retail stockers, 2 waiters, 2 "restaurant workers", 3 construction laborers, 1 mover, and one security guard.  

Of those 17 people, 11 would probably qualify as low income in our area - where the cost of living is 106% of the national average.  That's 65%.  Granted, this is a small sample - but it certainly speaks to the theory that most people considered "deadbeat dads" don't fit the perception of high income wage earners who refuse to pay when they have ample resources.  More likely, these are people who live from paycheck to paycheck, and one bump in the road can throw them into a financial tailspin.  Couple that with the fact that these guys are more than likely not educated, and probably have no idea how to manuever through the court system.  

These are the people the state of Virginia deems "most wanted"?  A waiter, a cook, a stockboy?

Just something to consider before hastening to condemn someone as a "deadbeat dad".  

[mistoffolees]

>In VA they list the "most wanted child support evaders" on
>the DCSE website.  A quick check shows there are 17 people on
>the list.  Of those 17 people there are 2 retail stockers, 2
>waiters, 2 "restaurant workers", 3 construction laborers, 1
>mover, and one security guard.  
>
>Of those 17 people, 11 would probably qualify as low income in
>our area - where the cost of living is 106% of the national
>average.  That's 65%.  Granted, this is a small sample - but
>it certainly speaks to the theory that most people considered
>"deadbeat dads" don't fit the perception of high income wage
>earners who refuse to pay when they have ample resources.
>More likely, these are people who live from paycheck to
>paycheck, and one bump in the road can throw them into a
>financial tailspin.  Couple that with the fact that these guys
>are more than likely not educated, and probably have no idea
>how to manuever through the court system.  
>
>These are the people the state of Virginia deems "most
>wanted"?  A waiter, a cook, a stockboy?
>
>Just something to consider before hastening to condemn someone
>as a "deadbeat dad".  

I wonder what VA hopes to gain. If they know what the people do for a living, why aren't they spending their money going after them rather than wasting money making posters.

As I said, it's just a feel-good game to hide the fact that they're incompetent at collecting what they should be collecting.

[gemini3]

NM

[Lawmoe]

A better debate that I had with Ms. Brown was on WCCO radio and appears at
http://www.hjlawfirm.com/newsroom/podcasts/Pizza%20Box.mp3 or at
http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/deadbeatfathersonpizzaboxes/

[determined]

As described in the article at the url (http://www.glennsacks.com/ohio_pizza_box.htm), the issue is not what might happen in general if 'deadbeats' had their faces on pizza boxes, but rather what is happening now.  A few relevant observations include:

1.  The people targeted are specifically those who don't have
     resources.  Specifically, "Three roofers, two construction
     workers, a musician and four men with no known occupations".  
     As Glenn Sacks observes: "That Butler County was unable to
     come up with even one alleged "deadbeat" who has an
     education or a middle-class job might give public officials less
     zealous than Brown and Cullen some pause."

2.  Although in debate they made a point that they included in
     their deadbeat rolls 63 "deadbeat moms", not a single female
     was put on a pizza box.  This defies random chance and
     suggests that the campaign target not only the poor, but
     specifically poor dads (never moms).

3.  At no point in either the pizza boxes or the ensuing debate
     have I seen a thoughtful recognition of the impact of seeing
     the face of one's dad displayed on a pizza box.  This is hardly
     a hypothetical question -- there are kids out here right now
     who have to have seen their father's face on a pizza box.
     I think their feelings should count and I don't think their
     voices have been heard.

Targeting poor kids by stiSLURPizing them in front of their peers is nothing short of shameful.  And let us not miss the point, this is done in complete disregard of the kids' best interests and feelings for the sole purpose of pushing an anti-father agenda (otherwise it might be able to catch at least one female or even at least one father who has a good-paying job).

[Jade]

>As described in the article at the url
>(http://www.glennsacks.com/ohio_pizza_box.htm), the issue is
>not what might happen in general if 'deadbeats' had their
>faces on pizza boxes, but rather what is happening now.  A few
>relevant observations include:
>
>1.  The people targeted are specifically those who don't have
>     resources.  Specifically, "Three roofers, two
>construction
>     workers, a musician and four men with no known
>occupations".  

You listed jobs that can and have paid under the table.  Which would make it look like the ncp has no known occupation.  


>     As Glenn Sacks observes: "That Butler County was unable
>to
>     come up with even one alleged "deadbeat" who has an
>     education or a middle-class job might give public
>officials less
>     zealous than Brown and Cullen some pause."
>
>2.  Although in debate they made a point that they included in
>
>     their deadbeat rolls 63 "deadbeat moms", not a single
>female
>     was put on a pizza box.  This defies random chance and
>     suggests that the campaign target not only the poor, but
>
>     specifically poor dads (never moms).

I think deadbeat moms should be on the pizza boxes.


>
>3.  At no point in either the pizza boxes or the ensuing
>debate
>     have I seen a thoughtful recognition of the impact of
>seeing
>     the face of one's dad displayed on a pizza box.  This is
>hardly
>     a hypothetical question -- there are kids out here right
>now
>     who have to have seen their father's face on a pizza
>box.
>     I think their feelings should count and I don't think
>their
>     voices have been heard.

Okay, here is my true life example:

My parents divorced when I was 14.  My father is an abusive alcoholic who rarely paid his child support.  He always worked.  And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for FIVE children.  This was back before the time that child support was garnished or enforcement was even taken seriously.  I was poor.  I only had one pair of pants that I had to keep mending to wear.  I was too embarassed to get the free lunch at school, so I went without.  And, yes, my mom did work.  But she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school.  He encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years older than her).  This way, she would be completely dependent on him.

Do you really think I would have cared if my father's picture was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child support?  

I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.  


>
>Targeting poor kids by stiSLURPizing them in front of their
>peers is nothing short of shameful.  And let us not miss the
>point, this is done in complete disregard of the kids' best
>interests and feelings for the sole purpose of pushing an
>anti-father agenda (otherwise it might be able to catch at
>least one female or even at least one father who has a
>good-paying job).


It isn't an anti-father agenda.  It is a pro-pay your child support agenda.  

And as a child with a deadbeat dad, I wouldn't have been stiSLURPized by having his picture on a pizza box.  His lack of paying child support was what made my childhood embarassing.  

You guys are only looking at this with one perspective and trying to project how YOU would feel onto children.  

And, yes, some children would be stiSLURPized by a picture on the pizza box.  And some children would benefit from a picture on the box if it makes the ncp pay child support.  

[mistoffolees]

>
>Okay, here is my true life example:
>
>My parents divorced when I was 14.  My father is an abusive
>alcoholic who rarely paid his child support.  He always
>worked.  And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for
>FIVE children.  This was back before the time that child
>support was garnished or enforcement was even taken seriously.
> I was poor.  I only had one pair of pants that I had to keep
>mending to wear.  I was too embarassed to get the free lunch
>at school, so I went without.  And, yes, my mom did work.  But
>she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school.  He
>encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years
>older than her).  This way, she would be completely dependent
>on him.
>
>Do you really think I would have cared if my father's picture
>was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child
>support?  
>
>I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.  
>

Did they know where your father was? If so, why would they need to put his picture on a pizza box. As you've stated, they didn't enforce child support rigorously back then.

The answer is to enforce child support - not to create silly, abusive programs.

So far, you haven't given one argument to refute the arguments given above:
1. There is too much room for discretion by CSE - including wrongfully labelling people deadbeats (a couple of examples have been provided).
2. It won't collect any money - it's a publicity gimmick to make it look like they're doing something.
3. If they have the money for this program, it would better be spent on enforcement and collection.
4. People have a right to defend themselves. If they don't know where the 'deadbeat' is, that person can't defend himself. If they do know where he is, then they should go after him with legal means.
5. There's a great deal of potential for harming the kid - many kids do care about their parents and WOULD be hurt to see their father labeled a deadbeat. Furthermore, what if the father has died and appears on the pizza box? That would be immensely harmful.

Basically, your sob story makes good press, but doesn't address any of the real issues.

[wysiwyg]

I am at a loss for words from this post, that you would be willing to sacrifice the majority of childrens mental state for "some" that would in your eyes benefit.......................


There is no win in this situation, only hurt, pain and embarassment............at many levels and the cost is not money.  Think of the mental states of eveyone involved.

[Jade]

>
>>
>>Okay, here is my true life example:
>>
>>My parents divorced when I was 14.  My father is an abusive
>>alcoholic who rarely paid his child support.  He always
>>worked.  And all he was ordered to pay was $300 a month for
>>FIVE children.  This was back before the time that child
>>support was garnished or enforcement was even taken
>seriously.
>> I was poor.  I only had one pair of pants that I had to
>keep
>>mending to wear.  I was too embarassed to get the free lunch
>>at school, so I went without.  And, yes, my mom did work.
>But
>>she met my dad when she was 18 and still in high school.  He
>>encouraged her to drop out of school (btw, he is 20 years
>>older than her).  This way, she would be completely
>dependent
>>on him.
>>
>>Do you really think I would have cared if my father's
>picture
>>was on a pizza box if it meant that he would pay his child
>>support?  
>>
>>I was more embarassed by his not paying his child support.  
>>
>
>Did they know where your father was? If so, why would they
>need to put his picture on a pizza box. As you've stated, they
>didn't enforce child support rigorously back then.
>
>The answer is to enforce child support - not to create silly,
>abusive programs.
>
>So far, you haven't given one argument to refute the arguments
>given above:
>1. There is too much room for discretion by CSE - including
>wrongfully labelling people deadbeats (a couple of examples
>have been provided).
>2. It won't collect any money - it's a publicity gimmick to
>make it look like they're doing something.
>3. If they have the money for this program, it would better be
>spent on enforcement and collection.
>4. People have a right to defend themselves. If they don't
>know where the 'deadbeat' is, that person can't defend
>himself. If they do know where he is, then they should go
>after him with legal means.
>5. There's a great deal of potential for harming the kid -
>many kids do care about their parents and WOULD be hurt to see
>their father labeled a deadbeat. Furthermore, what if the
>father has died and appears on the pizza box? That would be
>immensely harmful.
>
>Basically, your sob story makes good press, but doesn't
>address any of the real issues.

One of the issues that was raised against this program was that it would stiSLURPize the children.  

I do believe that I have proven that it won't stiSLURPize all children, as was claimed.

My father was around, he just didn't pay his child support.  This was before automatic wage garnishment and before they had any laws like they have now.

I like the pizza box idea for the simple reason that it may actually help a child.  

I am sorry that you have such a problem with the government trying to find parents who aren't paying their child support.  But it needs to be done.