Educational Professional Shares Her Insights About Why Some Men Don’t Want To Pay Child Support And Many People On Twitter Believe It Makes Sense
Fortunately, those days when women couldn’t divorce their husbands are now over and they don’t even need to marry a person to live with them or have children with them. But it gets a little bit more complicated if you do have children, because previously the financial burden was halved, and in case of a separation, one of the parents has to pay child support.
The U.S. Census Bureau says that in 85 percent of cases, men pay child support and it is widely known that they are not always happy to do that even though the child is theirs. Twitter user Nsafoa’s Lost Key may have a theory why that is.
More info: Twitter
A Twitter user shared her thoughts on why so many fathers don’t pay child support and she theorizes it is because they don’t feel in control anymore
Image credits: Tony Alter
The Twitter user thinks that it has to do less with money and more with the psychology of a man who wants to be in control but now that the child is not living with them and they don’t have control over their family, they have less interest in providing for them.
Nsafoa’s Lost Key argues that after creating a new family, men gladly support them financially and thinks that this is proof that money is not the issue.
Image credits: YaaAsantewaaBa
She argues that men still pay for new families although they’re not their children
Image credits: YaaAsantewaaBa
What is more, the woman claims that men don’t want to file for custody either because the issue isn’t lack of money
Image credits: YaaAsantewaaBa
To counter the arguments that men don’t want to pay for children they are no longer living with and raising, the Twitter user gives an example of men getting flustered when asked why they don’t file for custody.
She theorizes that they don’t consider fighting for custody because they don’t need to be involved in the child’s life. The problem lies deeper in the desire to be the one in charge.
Image credits: AntiKilljoy
Image credits: YaaAsantewaaBa
People in the comments were discussing whether the theory has grounds and tried to draw parallels with their own experiences
Image credits: mugo_pm
Many women in the comments agreed and gave examples from their own lives how their ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends acted as if paying them child support meant that the women owed them something.
And there are actual studies done on why men refuse to financially support children that they know are theirs and there is no conclusion as the reasons often are complex.
Image credits: XL2LETTERS
Image credits: MsBambiLaBelle
There were a lot of people who agreed that the stereotype of the ‘manly man’ who needs to be in power is true and leads to them not taking responsibility
Image credits: nairobiie
Image credits: Giliell
Fathers not wanting to pay for their children may be attributed to the fact that they know they won’t see their children as often and they don’t want to invest into that relationship. Or maybe the problem is the courts not enforcing child support payments on men. Of course, men’s financial situation is also a factor, especially if they move on to another family and have to provide for basically two families.
Another reason that surfaced among the thread’s comments was that men are not willing to pay child support because they suspect that the money they give the mom doesn’t always go to help to raise the child and is used for the mothers themselves.
Image credits: MarcusRVO
Image credits: chandradawn1
Image credits: HTTOrganizers
Image credits: aviatorindia1
An article published in The New York Times in 1983 says that a common response why men don’t want to pay child support is that when they get divorced, they “They create a new fantasy of themselves because of the fear of getting old. And the denial may extend to the children.” Basically, the children become a reminder that they are getting old and a sign of the end of a carefree life, but with a new family, they can forget that their children exist.
Another psychological reason that is discussed is that maybe it’s a response to childhood trauma when the men were abandoned by their own fathers.
Image credits: trishling
Image credits: robinmcstay
Image credits: AdriaanBrae
But there were also opinions that the theory is a reach and just an excuse to pile dirt on men
Image credits: FatPaulies
Image credits: Sparksism
Image credits: GasaLuegi
Obviously there are fathers who gladly pay for their children and understand that they are as responsible for them as the mother who has the full custody.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement reported that in 2017, $33 billion was paid for more than 15 million children, or one in five. That means $10 billion is not collected, and maybe one of the reasons why could be the loss of control like Nsafoa’s Lost Key theorizes.
What do you think of this theory? Have you ever thought about this yourself or even experienced it? Leave your own theories in the comments!
I've never met a man who ditched his child support payments for any reason but these 1. He suffers addiction and the drugs got his money 2. He's jobless 3. he's punishing the ex for the split 4. he wants the money for himself b/c why should he pay for a kid he spawned but isn't raising 5. he just wants to walk away from the whole thing and forget the kid exists at all, b/c it's easier for him to find a new relationship/life that way. And all of these came from just my dad's brothers. And one cousin. So.... It varies person to person. And women can be horrible to kids, and skip child supoprt, too, if the father is the primary custodian. TLDR: People can suck.
I've heard another one: he doesn't realize how much raising a kid costs, so assumes the mom is using the money for herself
@Sergio, of course, I should've thought of that! I was raised to help Mom hide the checkbook from Dad. (Pre-ubiquitous credit-card usage days.) Had they divorced he'd have insisted it took $0 to raise children. Which was his contribution when he was working, so.... Yeah. Don't gott be divorced to be a deadbeat.
Idk, does a child cost 1000 USD/month? What if the mother doesn't even know or see the point in keeping track of the costs, because the money just flows on her bank account by itself?
@Hugo, yes. Per USDA figures, average cost of raising a child with education, health care, dental care, shelter, food, clothing, .... Averages to about $12K a year. Per child. So, yeah, it does cost that. You can get and spend less or more, but that's the average. You're welcome. (USDA keeps track of this stuff for some reason.)
Yes, yes, yes, and yes!
My birth-mother never paid a lick of the child support she was supposed to, to my Dad. So I know for a fact it's not just men that don't pay. I asked him once why he never took her to court over it and he said he just didn't want to have anything to do with her in the slightest so there was no point in pursuing it. To deal with the courts meant dealing with her and he was just not about that.
I'm sorry that happened to you. You're not alone. Saw a neighbor arrested for failure to pay ----- and, yes, it was the mother who was not paying.
I've known a few people who have done the same.
Absolutely. There may be a few out there who don't want to because they don't have 'control' (or for any other reason we can come up with) but most who don't pay don't pay because they want to keep the money for themselves and, where applicable, their new families.
I'm sorry but control goes both ways. Can't count how many times I have heard and read about women using their kids as p**n chips during seperation/divorce. Even to the point of lying about things such as abuse. Yes there are dead beat dads that don't pay or resist paying child support but I have heard many cases where some men withhold child support coz the mother is being spiteful and withholding the child. Another thing is that sometimes the child support is too much, especially when it comes to shared custody. I had a friend that had to pay 1/3 of his wage for child support but also had to pay extra whilst they were in his care. He adores his kids and spoils them rotten. The mother on the other hand takes advantage and always asks for extra money for something or rather, and he will just do it wether he can afford it or not.
It's true, there's a lot of men who do pay child support. This article seems to generalize men in general as deadbeat dad's.
However, people who don't pay child support because they can't see their kids isn't right. The pay child support for the kids care. If the mother is withholding the kids, that is wrong and should be handled outside of payment arrangements. IMHO.
But if one parent is withholding the kids--assuming they're doing so illegally--why should the other parent assume any money they pay is actually going to their child?
Long term married with no kids, so no dog in this race. I think the system is wrong. After splitting a relationship with children: then the child support should be paid by the state, and the parent responsible for paying child support should have to pay that money to the state. That would ensure more child support got paid (harder to default the state than your ex partner), and also remove the drama of money being a factor in the co parents lives. Then the co parents could have conversations about the children and how they choose to parent instead of having to ask where is my money. And d also then the parent with the responsibility for the child/children knows that the money will be there every month and can rely on it, make a budget.
I feel that creates a lot more burden on the government and tax payers to fund peoples choice to have kids (on top of the funds already given to/required by parents and children). There will be plenty of parents who default on the payment to the state/government and plenty more money spent on chasing it up, taking them to court, etc. Two people create a child and need to be responsible for the effects of their decisions. If they can’t resolve it, the state steps in - this is how it already works and I think it’s appropriate. I don’t think it’s the government’s problem from the get go to sort out decisions made by two adults.
The problem with that thinking is that when a noncustodial parent doesn't pay support the custodial parent often has to rely on government services like food stamps or housing assistance. Which means the government is involved anyway and now the custodial parent is facing the social stigma and social backlash of being on welfare.
Respectfully this comment presumes 2 things that tend not to be true. As insane as it sounds under the current system odds are the custodial parent (the parent the kids spend most of the time with, and whose house they go to school from) will probably also be the parent the state asks to pay child support. You also assume poor families can receive child support, but most states intercept it to repay for welfare.
Respectfully this is the flawed presumption with Child Support. 1) Custodial Parents tend to be who pay child support today. Many states use what is called an income-share system. The parent who is most adult tends to end up with the kids: pay most of their bills, kids live with that parent more of the time, and go to school from that parent's home. And if that parent has more income "on paper" that parent will also pay child support. 2) In many, if not most states, poor households can not receive child support. That means if you are receiving welfare the state will intercept child support to repay the welfare.
Respectfully what so many miss in this is the custodial parent is often the one paying child support under the current child support system. Many states do what is called an income-share system. Kids almost always end up with the responsible adult. But when the parent they spend the most time with, go to school from, and payes all their bills earns more... well that parent also pays child support. Also, in most states people on welfare can not receive child support; the state intercepts it to repay for welfare.
The problem with viewing this as “people’s choices to have kids” is that it looks at the situation from the adults’ perspective. The kids didn’t ask to be born and should not be punished for their parents’ decisions. Maybe involving the state isn’t the right solution, but not for the reason that we need to “make adults responsible for the effects of their decisions,” because that kind of thinking often ends up with children feeling those effects.
Katchen, I'm confused by your comment. Parents are responsible for their children. 99% of the time, children are the result of one/both parent's choices (not to use birth control, and so on). Parents continue to be responsible for these choices whether they want to be or not: which is why child support is a thing and if a parent doesn't pay, the government steps in. Many parents who are separated have no issues with paying child support and don't need the state involved.
California did that. My mother filed for child support in the California while my father lived in Louisiana. This was after she kidnapped us when my father got custody of us in MS, there's a hint of how bad she was a southern red state took custody away from the mother. Anyways no one informed my father of a child support case in California. They proceeded without him so she added her younger 2 kids, who were not his, to the child support case so she'd get double the money. California paid the money out to my mother every month. When my father found out he appealed, he had primary of my sister and I, she kidnapped us. California didn't care. The two younger children aren't his so he shouldn't be paying for them, DNA test to prove it. California didn't care, he pays for all 4 children. My dad lived and worked in Louisiana, the cost of living is so much cheaper there, he can't afford California child support. California didn't care. 500,000 in backed child support. She moved us to South Carolina which doesn't have CS through the state, at least at the time, so he paid the SC child support with a check every month, unbeknownst to him California was still paying child support too because it was an automatic system that just paid out every month. Even after she lost custody of all her children again, California still paid her.
That's a sh**y situation, very unfair to your dad.
Some states already offer this service, especially for children who collect other state benefits such as CHIPs or food stamps. A small portion of each payment (like 5%) is collected by the state to pay for the service, and if the noncustodial parent falls far behind, the state sues (rather than the custodial). It's a well-functioning system.
Actually, this is what many states do right now. The state formula as prescribed by law is triggered the day the divorce ends. The preferred method is direct garnishment by the state collection office whatever name it goes by. But in practice, this takes a few weeks to set up with payroll and the state. So in practice, most first payments are automatically late. It is also worth pointing out that "the parent with the responsibility for the child/children" is likely the one paying child support, not the one receiving it. With the whole 50/50 thing, we moved to a shared system where the support payment is proportionally split. It sounds great, but again in practice, this means the parent who the kids spend most of the time with, and pays most if not all of their bills likely is also the responsible adult with more income. Man or woman, the state then orders this single parent to pay the other adult who could not meet the state's best interest of the child standard.
Ditto on married-no-kids, and yet ---- leave the state out of it. Once a state is involved? Legislators are. In the US, that's like handing a knife to a serial killer and then saying, "But don't use it, be nice!".... Uh, no. There's enough trouble in divorce/child support, IMHO, without giving the state legislature a shot at the mess.
I've never met a man who ditched his child support payments for any reason but these 1. He suffers addiction and the drugs got his money 2. He's jobless 3. he's punishing the ex for the split 4. he wants the money for himself b/c why should he pay for a kid he spawned but isn't raising 5. he just wants to walk away from the whole thing and forget the kid exists at all, b/c it's easier for him to find a new relationship/life that way. And all of these came from just my dad's brothers. And one cousin. So.... It varies person to person. And women can be horrible to kids, and skip child supoprt, too, if the father is the primary custodian. TLDR: People can suck.
I've heard another one: he doesn't realize how much raising a kid costs, so assumes the mom is using the money for herself
@Sergio, of course, I should've thought of that! I was raised to help Mom hide the checkbook from Dad. (Pre-ubiquitous credit-card usage days.) Had they divorced he'd have insisted it took $0 to raise children. Which was his contribution when he was working, so.... Yeah. Don't gott be divorced to be a deadbeat.
Idk, does a child cost 1000 USD/month? What if the mother doesn't even know or see the point in keeping track of the costs, because the money just flows on her bank account by itself?
@Hugo, yes. Per USDA figures, average cost of raising a child with education, health care, dental care, shelter, food, clothing, .... Averages to about $12K a year. Per child. So, yeah, it does cost that. You can get and spend less or more, but that's the average. You're welcome. (USDA keeps track of this stuff for some reason.)
Yes, yes, yes, and yes!
My birth-mother never paid a lick of the child support she was supposed to, to my Dad. So I know for a fact it's not just men that don't pay. I asked him once why he never took her to court over it and he said he just didn't want to have anything to do with her in the slightest so there was no point in pursuing it. To deal with the courts meant dealing with her and he was just not about that.
I'm sorry that happened to you. You're not alone. Saw a neighbor arrested for failure to pay ----- and, yes, it was the mother who was not paying.
I've known a few people who have done the same.
Absolutely. There may be a few out there who don't want to because they don't have 'control' (or for any other reason we can come up with) but most who don't pay don't pay because they want to keep the money for themselves and, where applicable, their new families.
I'm sorry but control goes both ways. Can't count how many times I have heard and read about women using their kids as p**n chips during seperation/divorce. Even to the point of lying about things such as abuse. Yes there are dead beat dads that don't pay or resist paying child support but I have heard many cases where some men withhold child support coz the mother is being spiteful and withholding the child. Another thing is that sometimes the child support is too much, especially when it comes to shared custody. I had a friend that had to pay 1/3 of his wage for child support but also had to pay extra whilst they were in his care. He adores his kids and spoils them rotten. The mother on the other hand takes advantage and always asks for extra money for something or rather, and he will just do it wether he can afford it or not.
It's true, there's a lot of men who do pay child support. This article seems to generalize men in general as deadbeat dad's.
However, people who don't pay child support because they can't see their kids isn't right. The pay child support for the kids care. If the mother is withholding the kids, that is wrong and should be handled outside of payment arrangements. IMHO.
But if one parent is withholding the kids--assuming they're doing so illegally--why should the other parent assume any money they pay is actually going to their child?
Long term married with no kids, so no dog in this race. I think the system is wrong. After splitting a relationship with children: then the child support should be paid by the state, and the parent responsible for paying child support should have to pay that money to the state. That would ensure more child support got paid (harder to default the state than your ex partner), and also remove the drama of money being a factor in the co parents lives. Then the co parents could have conversations about the children and how they choose to parent instead of having to ask where is my money. And d also then the parent with the responsibility for the child/children knows that the money will be there every month and can rely on it, make a budget.
I feel that creates a lot more burden on the government and tax payers to fund peoples choice to have kids (on top of the funds already given to/required by parents and children). There will be plenty of parents who default on the payment to the state/government and plenty more money spent on chasing it up, taking them to court, etc. Two people create a child and need to be responsible for the effects of their decisions. If they can’t resolve it, the state steps in - this is how it already works and I think it’s appropriate. I don’t think it’s the government’s problem from the get go to sort out decisions made by two adults.
The problem with that thinking is that when a noncustodial parent doesn't pay support the custodial parent often has to rely on government services like food stamps or housing assistance. Which means the government is involved anyway and now the custodial parent is facing the social stigma and social backlash of being on welfare.
Respectfully this comment presumes 2 things that tend not to be true. As insane as it sounds under the current system odds are the custodial parent (the parent the kids spend most of the time with, and whose house they go to school from) will probably also be the parent the state asks to pay child support. You also assume poor families can receive child support, but most states intercept it to repay for welfare.
Respectfully this is the flawed presumption with Child Support. 1) Custodial Parents tend to be who pay child support today. Many states use what is called an income-share system. The parent who is most adult tends to end up with the kids: pay most of their bills, kids live with that parent more of the time, and go to school from that parent's home. And if that parent has more income "on paper" that parent will also pay child support. 2) In many, if not most states, poor households can not receive child support. That means if you are receiving welfare the state will intercept child support to repay the welfare.
Respectfully what so many miss in this is the custodial parent is often the one paying child support under the current child support system. Many states do what is called an income-share system. Kids almost always end up with the responsible adult. But when the parent they spend the most time with, go to school from, and payes all their bills earns more... well that parent also pays child support. Also, in most states people on welfare can not receive child support; the state intercepts it to repay for welfare.
The problem with viewing this as “people’s choices to have kids” is that it looks at the situation from the adults’ perspective. The kids didn’t ask to be born and should not be punished for their parents’ decisions. Maybe involving the state isn’t the right solution, but not for the reason that we need to “make adults responsible for the effects of their decisions,” because that kind of thinking often ends up with children feeling those effects.
Katchen, I'm confused by your comment. Parents are responsible for their children. 99% of the time, children are the result of one/both parent's choices (not to use birth control, and so on). Parents continue to be responsible for these choices whether they want to be or not: which is why child support is a thing and if a parent doesn't pay, the government steps in. Many parents who are separated have no issues with paying child support and don't need the state involved.
California did that. My mother filed for child support in the California while my father lived in Louisiana. This was after she kidnapped us when my father got custody of us in MS, there's a hint of how bad she was a southern red state took custody away from the mother. Anyways no one informed my father of a child support case in California. They proceeded without him so she added her younger 2 kids, who were not his, to the child support case so she'd get double the money. California paid the money out to my mother every month. When my father found out he appealed, he had primary of my sister and I, she kidnapped us. California didn't care. The two younger children aren't his so he shouldn't be paying for them, DNA test to prove it. California didn't care, he pays for all 4 children. My dad lived and worked in Louisiana, the cost of living is so much cheaper there, he can't afford California child support. California didn't care. 500,000 in backed child support. She moved us to South Carolina which doesn't have CS through the state, at least at the time, so he paid the SC child support with a check every month, unbeknownst to him California was still paying child support too because it was an automatic system that just paid out every month. Even after she lost custody of all her children again, California still paid her.
That's a sh**y situation, very unfair to your dad.
Some states already offer this service, especially for children who collect other state benefits such as CHIPs or food stamps. A small portion of each payment (like 5%) is collected by the state to pay for the service, and if the noncustodial parent falls far behind, the state sues (rather than the custodial). It's a well-functioning system.
Actually, this is what many states do right now. The state formula as prescribed by law is triggered the day the divorce ends. The preferred method is direct garnishment by the state collection office whatever name it goes by. But in practice, this takes a few weeks to set up with payroll and the state. So in practice, most first payments are automatically late. It is also worth pointing out that "the parent with the responsibility for the child/children" is likely the one paying child support, not the one receiving it. With the whole 50/50 thing, we moved to a shared system where the support payment is proportionally split. It sounds great, but again in practice, this means the parent who the kids spend most of the time with, and pays most if not all of their bills likely is also the responsible adult with more income. Man or woman, the state then orders this single parent to pay the other adult who could not meet the state's best interest of the child standard.
Ditto on married-no-kids, and yet ---- leave the state out of it. Once a state is involved? Legislators are. In the US, that's like handing a knife to a serial killer and then saying, "But don't use it, be nice!".... Uh, no. There's enough trouble in divorce/child support, IMHO, without giving the state legislature a shot at the mess.