ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, February 29, 1996 TAG: 9602290052
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: Talking it Over
To the Editor - THERE IT is again, that fickle finger of shame pointing at so-called deadbeat dads (Jan. 31 news article, ```Deadbeat' program tries to stay alive'').
Thanks to you bleeding-heart, self-righteous saviors of the children, women today can get more money with less effort by shifting their dependency from a husband to their children. (Supporting themselves is rarely an option.)
If all those no-good father types have all that money you seem to think they have, then why give the child to the mother who has none (a deadbeat?), and then spend millions of dollars trying to ``make him pay''? Child-support enforcement is not cost-effective, you know.
Far be it from me to attack the sacred institution of motherhood. But there's no fox in the henhouse - just a bunch of noisy chickens.
If you want fathers to support their children, give them their children. You're not doing anyone any favors by enabling an incestuous codependency, and perpetuating the cycle of hatred.
If a mother can support her children, fine. Then leave the father alone.
- JOHN N. SMILEY
Our Reply - WAIT A minute. Wouldn't you agree that both parents, whether living together or apart, are responsible for their children's well-being?
It shouldn't be an either/or situation, as you imply, where responsibility falls only on the parent to whom a court has granted custody of children.
Nor, for that matter, should having money be the criterion for awarding custody.
Doubtless, many good fathers have been denied custody in divorce cases. They may also have been denied as much access to their children, and say in their upbringing, as they would desire.
Many such fathers, especially if bitterness has marked the breakup of their marriages, might have cause to feel unfairly burdened with court-ordered child-support payments.
Wouldn't you agree, though, that a good father would not want to inflict suffering on his children, whatever the resentment he may feel toward the children's mother?
``Deadbeat'' is an ugly label, whether applied to mothers or dads who renege on financial responsibilities. But there are such parents. In such cases, child-support enforcement efforts are needed.
The Last Word - DIVORCED parents have already agreed to disagree. Attempts toforce compromise for the child's sake only put the child in the middle, to referee or manipulate or both. Why not face facts? If you keep doing what you're doing, you're going to keep getting what you're getting.
If a woman chooses to irresponsibly have a child she cannot provide for, she should give that child to someone who can. I thought you set free the ones you love, not attach yourself to them to obsessively dominate and use them for your own unmet needs. Children are not in this world to give the mother love, keep her company, make her happy or give her a sense of power and control.
You're not only glossing over the problem with unrealistic expectations and fantasies. You're abusing the solution by calling the father names, by threatening, extorting, blackmailing, incarcerating, banishing, shaming, blaming and manipulatively making his love for his children conditional.
This assumption that fathers don't care is wrong. The assumption that mothers make the better parent is wrong. And responsibility without authority is injustice (as is authority without responsibility).
It has to be either/or because nothing else works. Otherwise you keep inflicting suffering on everyone.
- J.N.S.
John N. Smiley of Roanoke is a semi-retired paper hanger.
LENGTH: Medium: 70 linesby CNB