Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 
Criminalizing America's fathers?

Last summer, conservatives were celebrating 10 years of welfare reform. Now we learn out-of-wedlock births are at a record high and married couples comprise less than half the nation's households.

And those out-of-wedlock births no longer proceed from just low-income teenagers. Inspired by books like Peggy Drexler's "Raising Boys Without Men," middle-class, middle-aged women are now bearing many of the fatherless children. This number does not even include the children of divorce, which almost doubles the 1.5 million out-of-wedlock births.

This plague of fatherless children is driven not only by culture but also by federal programs that subsidize single-parent homes through quasi-welfare entitlements for the affluent that welfare reform did not address.

In fact, the welfare subsidy on single-mother homes was never really curtailed so much as it was shifted. Reformers largely replaced welfare with child support, on the reasonable principle that fathers, rather than taxpayers, should support their children. But a profound unintended consequence has been the transformation of welfare from public assistance into law enforcement.

Like any bureaucracy, this one found rationalizations to expand. During the 1980s and 1990s — with no explanation or public debate — enforcement machinery created for children in poverty was dramatically expanded to cover all child support cases, including those not receiving welfare.

This vastly expanded the program by bringing in millions of middle-class divorce cases. While it is almost impossible to collect from young inner-city fathers, divorced fathers have pockets to mine. Non-welfare cases — for which the system was never intended — now account for 83 percent of cases and 92 percent of the money collected.
These fathers have not abandoned their children. Most were actively involved with them, and many clamor for more time with them. Yet for the state to collect its funding, fathers willing and able to care for their children must be designated as "absent." Divorce courts are pressured to cut children off from their fathers to conform to the welfare model of "custodial" and "noncustodial." The perverse incentives further criminalize fathers by impelling states to make child support levels as onerous as possible.

This also creates a windfall for middle-class divorcing women and an incentive to create more fatherless children. "This recent entitlement," write economist Robert McNeely and legal scholar Cynthia McNeely, ". . . has led to the destruction of families by creating financial incentives to divorce [and] the prevention of families by creating financial incentives not to marry upon conceiving of a child."

Beyond the expense of the subsidies are costs of diverting the criminal justice system from protecting society to criminalizing law-abiding parents and keeping them from their children. But the entitlement state must then devise additional programs — many times more expensive — to deal with the social costs of fatherless children.

"My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs," says former Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Wade Horn. "The need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages." Given the social ills attributed to fatherless homes — including crime, truancy and scholastic failure, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy and suicide — it is reasonable to see a huge proportion of domestic spending as among the costs.

These developments offer a preview of where our entire system of welfare taxation is headed: expropriating citizens to pay for destructive programs that create the need for more spending and more taxation. It cannot end but in criminalizing more and more of the population.


President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children and assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College, Purcellville, Va. The research on which this article is based is published by the Institute for Policy Innovation.

P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers

"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

Senior Member
Posts: 50
Reply with quote  #2 
Thanks for sharing you have a very nice post and amazing site NSW Public Holidays 2018 Calendario descargable 2018 ski jackets sale Nice Pattern How to move
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!