We have all seen the news reports of "deadbeat dads" roundups. Sheriffs officers, dressed as SWAT teams, sometimes accompanied by publicity-hungry politicians, swoop down at 3:00 AM on the home of some unsuspecting, unemployed noncustodial father, and lead him out in handcuffs, bleary-eyed in front of the glare of the TV cameras. When the news around the State House was slow, even Governor Whitman dressed in black and went along on these raids.
Although occasionally a token child support obligor woman is picked up in one of these raids, only men are paraded in front of the cameras. Child support enforcement authorities would have you believe that these are the guys who dumped the ex-wife and kiddies to take up a life of luxury yachts, flashy sports cars and sunny beaches with a new, shapely blond bimbo. The only problem with that is, in the pictures I see, the guy is being taken out of a run-down house in the poorest part of town. There are no sports cars or bimbos in sight; only his beat-up jalopy.
What the news reports don't say is that the vast majority of these arrested fathers have been ordered to pay exorbitant support that has no relationship to their income or the actual cost of raising children, and simply can't comply. They are locked up for a few days -- at taxpayers' expense. While incarcerated, they lose their jobs -- if they had any. When the judge finally figures out that they have no way to pay, and it's costing more to keep them in jail than they are trying to collect, they are released, sometimes for a token payment, and the whole futile cycle starts all over again with the now-unemployed father less able to pay and deeper in debt.
The real losers are the children. They don't have the love, nurturing and guidance of their father. Often, fathers are driven away from their children to avoid being arrested again.
The New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts says that 93 percent of the parents picked up in their raids are men, but according to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, noncustodial mothers have a child support default rate three times higher than fathers. Why don't we see these irresponsible noncustodial mothers being arrested? We believe it's because of widespread gender bias in child support enforcement.
Here are the facts in one case that was recently brought to our attention:
A child was born to an unmarried couple in 1992. Mom was awarded custody, and Dad was ordered to pay child support. Dad paid in full and on time, as ordered, until 1996, when custody was transferred to Dad. Mom was then ordered to pay a whopping $15 a week. (Support was later minimally increased.)
She never paid anything directly. In 1997, a wage garnishment was ordered. Dad received two checks via garnishment, then the garnishment mysteriously stopped even though Mom was still working full time for the same employer.
In January, 1998, Dad phoned the county Probation department. It took them until June, 1998 to schedule an enforcement hearing. Mom didn't show up, and an arrest warrant was issued. Mom then phoned Probation and, based on whatever it was that she said in that phone call, Probation had the warrant recalled.
Mom made no further payments and no enforcement action was taken until a hearing in September, 1999, when Probation increased her payment to include $10 a week toward arrears, and put her on "one week warrant status."
Within a week, and contrary to the written court order, the automatic warrant status was dropped. Next, Mom's weekly child support obligation was mysteriously reduced to zero in Probation's computer, and only the arrears were garnished.
Then, when Dad didn't receive any support for two weeks and no warrant was issued, he called Probation. He was told that there must have been an error inputting the information in the computer, and it would be fixed.
A month later, having still received nothing toward current support, Dad phoned Probation again. This time a supervisor reviewed the court order and assured him that he would personally fix the computer entry.
Now, months since the September enforcement hearing, Dad checked with Probation again and learned that the computer problem has never been fixed, only the $10 arrears are being garnished from Mom, weeks of child support payments have been missed, and no warrant has been issued.
Do you think there is gender bias among the mostly female child support workers in the Probation department? Did they "make a mistake" in the computer because their "sister" gave them a sad story? Do you think this would have happened if Mom was the custodial parent and Dad was the child support obligor? Or, if it was Mom waiting for her support checks, would the inefficient boob-robot-clerks at probation have been fired, and maybe even criminally prosecuted?
Regardless of whether the "mistakes" in this case are corrected, how many other custodial fathers are receiving similar treatment in enforcing the child support due them? It took years for New Jersey's practices of racial profiling in traffic stops to be uncovered. Maybe it's time for the sheriff to break down the doors of some Probation workers in middle-of-the-night raids.
If you have evidence that can help support a case proving a widespread gender profiling practice in child support enforcement by New Jersey family courts and probation departments, let us know. Contact FACE at 856-786-FACE or info@facenj.org.
The author has verified the facts in this case by reviewing the court orders and checking the state's computer through 1-800-621-KIDS. Although the father wishes the parties to remain anonymous, he is hopeful that the legislators, judges, and other authorities who read this newsletter will act to resolve this matter. So they can verify the facts, he wishes us to report that the child support case number is 41370355A.
![[FACE Home]](../../images/facepict.jpg){kind=small}
FACE New Jersey Home Page