It is unusual to see a woman defending non-payment of child support, but that is just what blogger Elaine Doxie does in a recent post. She argues that enforcing child support may be unethical when the non-paying parent has legitimate reasons for non-payment. Her arguments that child support enforcement can be unethical show a serious misunderstanding of what an obligation is.
Speaking of “deadbeat dads”, Doxie writes, “They may be unemployed, hospitalized, in jail or even a prisoner of war, and are all treated as if they got into the situation they are in just to get out of paying child support.” The logic behind child support is that a parent’s obligations do not change just because he or she is not living with the child. An unemployed father in a family still has to feed and clothe and otherwise care for the needs of his children; he can’t just take care of himself and argue, “Hey, times are tough!” Why Doxie thinks the obligation should be any less for a non-custodial parent, whose only parental duty is payment, is puzzling. The need to support a child must become part of the motivation to get a job (or two), as well as to stay out of prison. (If she knows of a case in which a prisoner of war has been punished for an interruption of child support payments, I’d like to see it. Yes, that would be unreasonable and unfair.) Both parents created the child; both parents share responsibility for the child’s welfare. No exceptions. They must plan their lives accordingly.
The blogger has strange notions of ethics and fairness. She expresses outrage that “a father who had no idea that he even had a child, only to have an ex-girlfriend or even a one night stand come back years later with her hand out for money.” “While everyone should take responsibility for their actions, we are creating a double standard because we are not holding the custodial parents responsible for their actions,” she writes. “Double standards, are by their very nature unethical.”
There is no double standard; both parents are responsible for the child. The father in such a situation has been mistreated, it is true, by the mother not informing him of his offspring’s existence. Nevertheless, that is not the fault of the child, and the requirement that a father contribute to the costs of raising his child cannot be eliminated by the mother’s misconduct. Again, two parents, two obligated adults: this is all for the child’s benefit and safety, as it should be.
“If a woman has a child, and chooses to raise that child herself, she is choosing that responsibility,” says Doxie. Wrong: the law properly says that a father cannot be spared his duty to contribute to the care of a child he fathered absent a permanent and binding agreement to the contrary. A mother’s unilateral decision to raise the child herself without financial contribution is not binding, because the child did not agree to it, and it is the child whose welfare is endangered should the mother prove incapable of meeting the child’s financial needs by herself. Ethically, all non-custodial parents should contribute financially to their children, regardless of legal arrangements, job status, or any other factor—because the children are theirs, and they have the same parental obligations as any parent. There is no valid ethical argument for relieving a parent of this obligation, just as there is no valid ethical justification for creating a child that one cannot or will not raise to adulthood.
Here Doxie leaps the ethical and logical rails completely. “[The mother] could choose to have an abortion, or put the baby up for adoption, but she instead chooses to have the child,” she writes.”It is her responsibility to inform the father as soon as she knows about the pregnancy, but he should be given the option, just as she has, to opt in or out of fatherhood. He cannot demand that she give the baby up, but should have the option of signing his rights away as a father.” Two minutes of thought should show how bad this system would be. An irresponsible father, whatever his means, would be able to extort the mother of his child into having an abortion or giving up the child. “Either terminate the pregnancy, or I will unilaterally renounce my parental rights and obligations, and you will have to raise the child with no help from me,” he could say. Again, as in Doxie’s whole post, the child’s welfare is an afterthought. Abortion is legal, but it is often unethical, and coerced abortion is definitely unethical, and egregiously so.
Next Doxie examines another scenario. ” In divorce, things get slightly more complicated…what’s on the surface does not always reflect what is beneath. Abusive men file for custody frequently to avoid paying child support themselves. They usually win, because they have more money and more resources. Is it ethical for a person who can barely support themselves and who has been abused and lost everything to have to pay child support?”
Answer: It sure is! The child is hers; she shares the obligation to care for it. How can the fact that the mother was abused justify harming the child or relieving the mother of the parental duties flowing from her decisions leading to birth? It can’t.
The ethics of child support are simple and elegant: if you don’t want to have to support a child financially, and be obligated to fulfill that support as your first priority, even above your own needs, don’t have a child without a stable and committed relationship, don’t risk creating a child, and don’t kid yourself that arguments like Doxie’s manufacturing invalid reasons why it is unfair for the law to insist that you pay to support the human life your create will ever be adopted by society.
The child’s welfare comes first, and the ethical obligations all flow from that unalterable fact. That’s not unethical, Ms. Doxie; that’s parenthood.
Ethics Alarms 
With you all the way. Every family court judge should have a copy (or am I wrong in thinking that ethics have a place in our judicial system?). . . . . Not that it’s your job to calk up all the crevices in an argument, but what about the anonymous sperm donors?
I am tired of reading about these welfare-child support-entitlement queens who think they are owed something. Child support is not about the children. It’s “de facto” alimony so these entitlement whores don’t have to pay taxes on this money.
If these entitlement pigs want to complain about their child support problems, maybe it’s time to stop giving women custody, since they have more rights and entitlements than men in society anyway, and give custody of children to men. It seems men do a better job as single parents anyway.
These entitlement whores are poster children for “mandatory sterilization”.
Of course it is about the children. If the mothers use the money illegitimately, that’s an entirely different issue. I don’t know where you get the idea that we do better as single parents. You obviously watched a lot of “Bachelor Father,” “Family Affair,” and “The Courtship of Eddie’s Father.” These were TV shows. Glad I could clear up the confusion.
U really did not.
Considering your spelling, I’m not surprised.
While I am not involved in defending non-custodial parents in contempt proceedings any more, I have been in the past. I have told judges that I will believe in the so-called sanctity of child support orders when custodial parents are jailed for not allowing court-ordered visitation. Of course child support is a moral, ethical, and legal obligation, but so is the nurturing of children. There are so many different kinds of parents–the non-custodial who desperately want to be part of their childrens’ lives; the vindictive custodial and noncustodial who use their children as weapons in their ongoing mutual hostilities; the custodial who wants the non-custodial to visit with his or her children when the non-custodial couldn’t care less, and on and on and on.
Our present system seems to be the one size fits all, and it makes it difficult for the person with the support obligation to get back into court to seek adjustments. Thus, the parent whose support obligation is X dollars a month and who finds himself unemployed cannot easily get back into court to adjust the amount. Thus, the arrearage continued to accumulate to the point where he or she can never hope to catch up.
I have no clue as to what the answer to this problem is. In my line of work (I’m a public defender), I see far too many people who are having child after child (both fathers and mothers) with absolutely no sense of responsibility for the welfare or the future of their children (along with a lack of a sense of responsibility for much of anything else). I think it is this lack of sense of responsibility that needs to be addressed, for I believe it is more than symptomatic with what ails the nation.
As the author of the article that you are referring to, I think it is necessary to provide yet another reference from the article that you failed to mention in your blog.
“If there is a need for child support, and if the other parent has the ability to pay, then it is ethical to enforce it.”
I am not against child support as a general rule. What I am against is enforcement measures that result in payment being prevented, and result in some people seeking custody just to get child support. Seeking custody of your children should be because you love them, not because you want a check, or to get out of writing a check.
Thanks for the clarification, Elaine. I don’t have an objection to the last sentence at all. I do strongly disagree that it is appropriate not to pay one’s just share of a child’s care simply because the other parent has sufficient resources to do it alone. Again, it is a shared obligation, a shared responsibility, and both parents should support the child they brought into the world, financially and parentally.
Mr Marshall,
What Elaine also does not say is the fact that she has four children she walked away from, then went and had another child with her new husband. She is now trying every way possible to get out of having to support her “other” children. Out of 80+Visitiaton days she used 2 because she will not show up to pick up the children. She wants to say that the father of the four children took them from her just to get child support, however she signed and agreed to the child support and visitation order in front of the judge, knowing she was not going to live up to it as she was planning to move to Reno. After she moved back to town she lost legal custody due to her behavior and parenting skills.
She just expected not to be held accountable for what SHE agreed to do and has failed to do. She is now to the point that after that did not work; she now accuses him of abuse to try to make him look bad to everyone, including the children, especially in her writings. However, never in the two years that their divorce and custody battle went on was abuse even mentioned. I went and read the whole thing. The one thing that I have seen in reading all the documentations is that when she filed for divorce she wanted sole custody, alimony and child support. This was after he paid the house note for her to live in the house. Now that the shoe is on the other foot its unethical for her to have to pay…..
“…Bobby Sherrill, a divorced father of two from Parkton, N.C., was a casualty of that war. Mr. Sherrill, who worked for Lockheed in Kuwait before being captured and held hostage by Iraq for nearly five harrowing months, was arrested the night he returned from the Persian Gulf War. Why? For failing to pay $1,425 in child support while he was a captive. “
A stupid move by law enforcement, but one that has no bearing on the reasonableness of enforcing child support payments generally.
Whats intresting is if you research this case it happened in 1990 before the changes in child support laws that allow child support to be lowered. It is especially true for our men and wemon serving our nation. There are many resources out there that can help lower child support should it be warrented; however I agree with Mr. Marshall it still does not excuse the rest of the population of their obligations. If you have a child its your responablity. Child support obligations I do think are higher for men then they are for moms. My husbands ex wife only had to pay $250 a month for four children. Even still it took almost 2.5 years for the courts to make her do that little bit for her children.
The things in that post that are not flat out lies are horribly distorted. I actually never asked for child support, sole custody or alimony, but my ex asked for child support and sole custody of the children. Alimony was never mentioned by either party. I asked for joint custody, but after I lost my home, car and job thanks to the long custody battle I had nowhere to go except for my new boyfriend’s apartment and no way to take care of my children, partially because he refused to pay child support, I finally gave up and took whatever was offered as far as child custody went. I cared more about my children than forcing them to live in squallor because I couldn’t support them. I did have another daughter, and I won’t apologize for that. I love her every bit as much as I love my other 4 children. I also love my new husband as he has helped me to rebuild the self esteem that my ex destroyed during the 15 year marriage and subsequent divorce.
The “writing” that is referred to in the previous post is what is paying the child support, and I have written extensively about emotional abuse and it’s effects. I have written about why it needs to be taken more seriously by the court system. Very few, if any of my articles mention her or her husband. Writing is my career, not just a hobby, and I have written over 750 articles, on everything from child support and abuse to how to put tissue paper in a gift bag.
I make no secret of the fact that I feel I was abused by my ex husband. I hold the court system and lawyers responsible for telling me that I should not talk about abuse in court and I am seeking to change the system so that emotional abuse is just as well recognized as physical abuse in family court, and so that custody battles are not allowed to drag out until one partner loses everything.
I have full documentation to everything that I have posted and can prove it right down to the original divorce papers filled out by hand by Elaine Doxie stating she wanted everything. They are even stamped however they were not filed because the day she went to file them she found that her now ex-husband had already filed. I can back up everything that I said and more.. Elaine holds tight to an abuse excuse but has no proof nor any documentation to say it occurred. She has even explained that a simple argument is emotional abuse in her book. So with that definition every one is a victim and an abuser.
What still amazes me that some people do not own up to their choices, mistakes and responsibilities. It is always seams she has to be the perpetual “victim”. When the divorce happened both parties where making almost the same amount of income and had 50% custody arraignment. She did not “lose” her job she gave it back by violated policies that got her fired. Those are her choices in her life. Everything came down to the choices she made. She has consistently chosen her new husband (same man referenced in her post above as boyfriend) over her children. She chose to move in with that man that would not accept nor accommodate her children. She has chosen to live in the same city and not see her children and not provide for them except when it meant she was going to go to jail.
If a father that would have done what she has done would have long since been in deep trouble, but because she is “mom” she has been extended chance after chance. I am currently working hard to improve my writing skills to help in my future career. I will graduate with honors from my Associated in Paralegal studies in September and will be assisting in father’s rights groups here in Las Vegas. I am hoping to get accepted in UNLV’s Law program next year, so that I can attempt to make a difference in how Mom/dads are treated in the family court system. They both should be held to the same standards and measurements.
Child support is not always the same.The circumstances are different in each case. A women will never have a child she doesn’t know about but for a man this this sad,tragic, nightmare may happen more often then you may think. If he is a military member or some other occupation that requires him to move a lot. When he receives this shocking news 12-15 years or more later,He does not get the chance to pay back support he goes directly to jail since he can’t pay in jail he stays in jail for nonpayment of back child support this type of circular reasoning of the courts has entrapped many men.This is not justice for the child(young adult) or the mother. You would think the states would be more interested in back support payments THINK AGAIN! all the states receive matching federal funds for child support
The last sentence….that’s exactly it.
First of all, great article. I think you did a great job of explaining the ethical obligations of parents to support children they created. However, while I think the needs of the child trump a parent’s right to their wealth, I don’t think they trump a parents right to, say, work at a lower paying job, or not work at all. To say that a parent is morally obligated to work against their will seems like endorsing a kind of slavery (didn’t want to use such a bombastic word, maybe indentured servitude would be more appropriate? Still too bombastic? You know what I’m getting at.). And if it’s true that a parent isn’t ethically obligated to work, then a parent with no wealth can’t be obligated to pay child support because, after all, ought requires can.
Also, if an obligated parent’s basic needs are in tension with the same needs in their child, which way does that tension resolve, and why? I can see how the needs of a child trumps their parents right to their discretionary spending, but when even the parent’s basic needs are jeopardized, it’s not so clear to me anymore. My gut tells me you aren’t ethically obligated to sacrifice your own basic needs for someone else (although it is admirable if you do), but I’d be interested to hear what you have to say about that.
Where it’s unethical is where the mother cheats on the father and the father keeps them just as much as the mother, and still has to pay child support? Is that fair? Shouldn’t the time spent with the father be taken into consideration. Wouldn’t it be more ethical that the person who wanted the children to get them if the mother had cheated? Yes, child support can be ethical, but it is also abused. Women file for 2/3 of divorce, think that child support isn’t considered when making this decision? So, they get divorce because they know they’ll get child support, which on every measure of success, children do best in a two parent household, most likely, it’s the woman who’s taken that from them permanently, she should be the one to get “two jobs” as you so put it.
If the mother can put up a child for adoption, and absolve herself of all financial liability, then a father should be able to discard financial liability the same way. Just because one parent decides to keep the child, doesn’t mean the other parent should be responsible for paying them. Stop paying women to pop out children.