Sacks & Leving: Utah Bill to Punish ‘Deadbeat Dads’ Is Based on False Assumptions

Submitted by anthony on Tue, 2007-03-06 04:51

Article here. Excerpt:

"While fathers are usually blamed for divorce’s negative economic impact on children, what’s often overlooked is the simple fact that the income that once supported one household cannot support two at the same level, no matter how many punitive measures the government employs or how much fathers pay. Those who insist that the average child’s standard of living will not or should not decline after a divorce are kidding themselves."

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Yet we mistakenly believe that one person can support two families???

Pure fantasy. And the women believe "they have a right" to stay home with their kids.

Talk about dead beat.

oregon dad

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by oregon dad on Tue, 2007-03-06 22:16

Even if the father does not have a second family, he gets screwed big time. It is almost as if the idea is to charge him what he can pay, rather than on what the former family needs to live on! Not that he can really afford to pay it..case in point:

In Glenn Sacks' column a couple months ago, there was some guy mentioned who (from memory) had been making over $7,000/month from income. His wife then divorced him, and after child support (otherwise known as ex-wife support), ended up having to live on $300/month (he had to live in his car). I'm not exagerating, check for his column 2-3 mos ago. I don't know if Sacks keeps archives.

Sacks makes a good point in the same column. The reason so many dads "hide" from making support payments, is because such exhorbitant rates are charged. Then the fathers are called "deadbeats" when they do not come forward! Fuck that shit, I'd hide too!! Does anyone have a Mexican villa for sale, in case I decide to get married?

-axo

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by axolotl on Wed, 2007-03-07 00:57