Is there ever a valid excuse for being a dead beat parent?
 

I don't think there is. No kid deserves the abandonment that is essentially what being a dead-beat parent is.

No. I'm not all that sure you're going to get many people responding in the affirmative.

I could be wrong, but this is one of those when-is-it-okay-to-beat-a-child? kind of discussions.

Post #3. Mark it. It is ok to be a dead-beat parent when you fufill one or more of the following qualifications:

1) You are in jail
2) You are an active abuser of one of the "big" drugs (heroin, cocaine, Oxycotin, etc.)
3) You are homeless
4) You are legally incompetent
5) You are a failure as a human being and your organs should be repossesed

In my definition, "dead-beat" means not having legal custody. And most dead-beats do fit one or more of those definitions.

Good points Jazz. Post #3 noted.

I'd rather have a deadbeat dad than an abusive one.

Agreed - without getting into the probably limitless situations it would be better, I'll just say that I feel that pretty much any time the child would be in a worse situation having the "dead-beat" involved in their lives, it's a great excuse.

What if, during a separation, one is ordered by the courts not to see the child? What if you're in witness protection? What if you're deployed?

Shouldn't we define "dead-beat"?

good idea. In my mind, dead-beat always referred to a parent who had the means and the ability to be a parent, but just didn't give a shit.

We aren't talking about single, non-custodial parents who never pay child support or show up for visitation, then. There are plenty who are neglectful who are married and have the children living with them.

I don't know... ask my dad neddy65 (he's a member ;))

The problem with many of these "deadbeads" is that they have a number of things stacked against them.

A sampling of statistics:

• Men are awarded some form of child custody in only 39% of divorce cases.
• Men are twice as likely to suffer from depression as a result of the divorce.
• 66% of fathers lack the financial resources to pay the allotted payment of child support.

Not all "deadbeats" intentionally skip out on paying for their childcare. Actually, mothers who are non-custodial parents are less likely to pay for childcare than non-custodial fathers, but this is mainly due to their far lower income post-divorce.

Generally, I would say a valid excuse would be the inability to pay based on current employment and a reasonable standard of living. This goes for both mothers and fathers.

This definition seems to have "no excuses" built into it, which would render this thread moot.

According to Wiki, the term only describes a parent's financial commitment:
Deadbeat parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that's to be the definition, then there are excuses. Valid excuses.

Let us say, for example, that a woman lies about being on the pill. The man thinks he is being responsible (even uses a condom, which fails) and she gets pregnant. Should he be held responsible? I dunno, but I can see that being a valid excuse.

Which was precisely my point.

Using wiki wiki's definition doesn't do much either for the twats.

Insert standard If-you-don't-want-a-child-then-don't-have-sex response here. I don't give a shit if you wanted a child or not, if the baby has your genetics in its cells, you don't have a valid excuse not to care for it in some fashion. If we were sea turtles, sure but we're not. We're human. Punishing a child because the mom was a whore is a stupid, stupid thing to do.

I thought we could refer to it as a legal matter. If you get thrown in jail for not paying child support, doesn't that make you a deadbeat, at least in the media's eyes?

No valid excuse whatsoever.

I've personally known more than one noncustodial parent who voluntarily terminated their employment to keep their paychecks from garnishment.

Unfortunately, there are some who believe that child support is equivalent to alimony and don't think the custodial parent should be entitled if they're working.

JJ's right, IMO. Deadbeats (nonpayers, defined by me) are child abusers. The only difference is ignorance and intention.

So are smokers who smoke near their children. The difference, however, is that "deadbeats" could go to prison, which is dumb because that means the child support won't happen for certain in that case.

I have to disagree with you because there is a difference between being unwilling to pay and not having the ability to pay. If you've tried your best to make payments, but you're impoverished, would you consider it child abuse if you seriously couldn't afford the payments? What if the ruling didn't take into account employment income and living expenses? I'm not sure how the courts establish the payments, but I'm wondering if it's based on ability to pay. If it is, then this is another issue altogether.

I still stand by my 5 valid excuses. All the quibbling here falls into one of those 5.

Is there a particular situation that you have in mind when asking this kind of question? Sometimes it helps with responses if you can give us some more background on why you're asking, where this question is coming from, whether it's personal or just hypothetical, etc.

Agreed.
Courts make fair and impartial decisions, or at least they're supposed to. If the Judge's decision is viewed to be unfair, there are ways to challenge that.

The decision (at least within the State of Florida) is based upon the "lifestyle to which the child's become accustomed" and each parent's income at the time of separation.

If you're impoverished, I'd have to ask why. Your children shouldn't have to pay for your poor choices. I've had periods of unemployment and other extremely tough circumstances throughout my lifetime. But no matter what, my children have always had a roof and food, even when I had no job and no support. Sometimes one has to get off their high horse in order to provide for their kids. Irresponsibility is not an excuse.

If a parent can say they'd take a bullet for their child and sound oh-so-noble, they need to be willing to work an extra job or sweep at McDonald's and move to a smaller place, lesser neighborhood, or live in the streets in order to take care of them.

EDIT: I would like to add that I have seen some parents who somehow get charged with payments that are way beyond their means. This is ludicrous as well and ideally all decisions are fair to both custodial and noncustodial parents. But there is recourse if this should occur.

Awkwardly at best. A quibble for a quibble?

* * * * *

A good response, jewels. My problem is when many of these "deadbeats" are labeled monsters who hate children even though they may have put in a fair effort.

Suppose it's not your fault that you have a child. I remember a news story a while ago about a man whose ex-wife was suing for posession of his sperm that had been banked while they were married. Assuming that she gets (or got, I haven't followed the story) posession and ended up with a kid against her ex-husband's will, I'd say he has no obligation to help support it, since he had no willful part in creating it.

It has to have a finishing point This can get ridiculous.
So you bank sperm, die, and after you are dead the banked sperm supplies some DNA to a test-tube kid.
Sue the estate of the "dead-beat"?
At what point does being a sperm donor stop meaning you are liable for supporting the resulting human life?
I read of a man who got a blow-job from his ex-lover. She put his ejaculate into a baster and impregnated herself. Whether or not this is an urban myth, the story goes that he was liable, and had to pay support.

Personally, I think that if your circumstances change you should be allowed to adjust your court-ordered payments without being penalized for having a change in your life circumstances (you want to become a social worker and leave that soul-destroying job in high finance, but the courts say you need to keep up your 4 grand a week support payments for Junior's European vacations). You want to pay, but only according to your current needs/circumstances. You are not a dead-beat, but a person who goes through life with changes happening. Which is what life is all about, really.

Well, in Nebraska at least, it's when that human life achieves its' 19th year.

So, what is the consensus on a dead-beat parent? Is it a parent who doesn't pay their child support obligations? Or a parent who is "not there"? If the father moves to another state, but still makes attempts to visit his child and have his child visit a deadbeat, because he moved away? If the father took a job overseas to be able to afford child support and his present standard of living before he found out he was going to be a father a deadbeat?

What if the primary caretaker says things like "Don't worry about us. Your son's fine" in response to any attempt to maintain communication? In such a case where the primary caretaker makes things as difficult as possible for the distant parent to actually be a parent should the primary caretaker be reprimanded somehow? And if so, how?

This might be making this conversation a bit too personal, but there is a lot of gray area when talking about this. It's all black and white until you're actually in the situation. I agree any person who just bails and doesn't support their children in some way shape or form is the jerk of all jerks, but the primary caretaker isn't always a saint of all saints either.

Colorado has a Child Support Worksheet that you fill in how much you make and how much the other parent makes and it spits out a number. It's definitely geared towards divorce, and a situation where both parents are working, but with a really young child where overnights are not permitted due to the child's age it becomes very lopsided. It's still doable. If the definition of a deadbeat is a parent who doesn't pay child support, than I am in agreeance there is no reason not to, and if you can't pay the full amount there are ways to inform the courts of this and adjust payment (of course it costs some money to file for that, but in the amount you save each month it's worth it). If the definition of a deadbeat is not being there for your child, then the Jazz is absolutely right with his five rules, but I also think there is gray area in there.

Yes. A deadbeat is "a person who deliberately avoids paying debts" or a "parent who neglects parental responsibilities, esp. one who does not pay child support".

Custody has nothing to do with child support. While I do agree that there are many custodial parents who think it does and utilize their children in a sad and unfortunate game, a parent who does not pay court-ordered support is still entitled to see their child(ren).