Six months ago, the “Washington Post” launched a series titled “Being A Black Man” and has since published numerous articles exploring the lives of Black men in American society. I was particularly interested in one article, “Dad Redefined,” and other studies focusing on what it means to be a Black father. According to some poor, young Black fathers, they need to be there for their children, spend time with them, guide and discipline them, and provide them with emotional support.
Fathers also need to provide things like food and shelter, but many Black fathers did not mention economic support unless prompted by the interviewers, focusing instead on “being there for their children.” Unfortunately, some Black men provide neither. Nearly half of all Black children do not live with their fathers and many receive little or no child support. This is not news. Politicians and the media have repeatedly told us that many Black fathers are “deadbeats.” But what if they are not?
Of course, there are men (and women) of all races who do not support their children. But Black men are perceived as the greatest deadbeats even when their reasons for not paying child support might have more to do with being “deadbroke” than being “deadbeat.” Seventy percent of the child support arrears owed in 2003 was accumulated by men earning $10,000 a year or less. Over 2.5 million nonresident fathers of poor children are poor themselves. These men are not necessarily “deadbeats;” they are “deadbroke.”
Further, although the majority of poor, nonresident Black fathers do not make formal child support payments, many are quite involved in their children’s lives and make in-kind and nonfinancial contributions to their children. For example, they buy diapers, baby formula, groceries, toys, and baby furniture. One may wonder why these fathers do not simply pay child support instead, however minimal. There are a number of reasons. The items a father brings to his children are tangible evidence of his efforts to provide for them despite his dire circumstances. As such, the items have greater significance, visibility, and durability than cash payments which often disappear almost immediately as bills are paid or, in the case of children receiving public assistance, are used to reimburse the government for benefits it has provided the children.
Deadbroke Black fathers also make nonfinancial contributions—they often take care of their children in ways traditionally associated with motherhood. Because these men are often unemployed (or underemployed), they are available to take their children to school, to the doctor, and to watch them while their mothers work or run errands. Many researchers, myself included, have been surprised to learn that many “absent” Black fathers see their children not only on weekends, as divorced middle-class fathers often do, but often see them almost daily.
The law does not recognize these contributions. They do not count under our current definition of child support. Maybe they should. American society is alarmed at the high percentage of absent fathers—those who have little or no contact with their children. Studies suggest that children with absent fathers are more likely than children with involved fathers to perform poorly in school, to have low self-esteem, to become pregnant at an early age, to abuse drugs, and to engage in delinquent behavior. These children also feel rejected and often blame themselves for their fathers’ disappearance. Although, as Professor Dorothy Roberts has noted, policymakers have treated paternal absence “as a distinctly Black problem,” recent studies have found that poor, nonresident Black fathers are more involved with their children than are nonresident white or Latino fathers. Many men with child support arrears, however, are compelled to hide from their children because they fear detection by child support enforcement officials and possible incarceration. If society wants to encourage more Black men to remain a part of their children’s lives, we must address an unintended effect of aggressive child support enforcement policies—they drive poor fathers away from their children.
Notably, many Black mothers seem to recognize the nonmonetary contributions that poor Black fathers make. They often do not pursue poor Black fathers for child support and focus instead on securing fathers’ presence and involvement with their children. Some Black mothers fear that pursuing deadbroke fathers for payments that they cannot make will discourage them from seeing their children and from contributing at all. As one Black mother stated: “I don’t care about the child support. Just see the child.”
This does not mean that deadbroke fathers should be exempt from paying child support. Children need food, shelter, medical care, etc. and in-kind and nonfinancial contributions are just not enough. Further, Americans have made it clear that we have no desire to support other people’s children. However, before pursuing deadbroke men for child support payments that they cannot make, the law should take steps to help these men obtain the skills needed to secure stable and decent paying jobs so that they can support themselves and their children. In the meantime, or until we come up with a better solution, we might want to consider crediting poor fathers for in-kind and nonmonetary contributions as child support. It might encourage more fathers to see their children more frequently—a benefit to children that, unlike child support, is “priceless.”
Fathers also need to provide things like food and shelter, but many Black fathers did not mention economic support unless prompted by the interviewers, focusing instead on “being there for their children.” Unfortunately, some Black men provide neither. Nearly half of all Black children do not live with their fathers and many receive little or no child support. This is not news. Politicians and the media have repeatedly told us that many Black fathers are “deadbeats.” But what if they are not?
Of course, there are men (and women) of all races who do not support their children. But Black men are perceived as the greatest deadbeats even when their reasons for not paying child support might have more to do with being “deadbroke” than being “deadbeat.” Seventy percent of the child support arrears owed in 2003 was accumulated by men earning $10,000 a year or less. Over 2.5 million nonresident fathers of poor children are poor themselves. These men are not necessarily “deadbeats;” they are “deadbroke.”
Further, although the majority of poor, nonresident Black fathers do not make formal child support payments, many are quite involved in their children’s lives and make in-kind and nonfinancial contributions to their children. For example, they buy diapers, baby formula, groceries, toys, and baby furniture. One may wonder why these fathers do not simply pay child support instead, however minimal. There are a number of reasons. The items a father brings to his children are tangible evidence of his efforts to provide for them despite his dire circumstances. As such, the items have greater significance, visibility, and durability than cash payments which often disappear almost immediately as bills are paid or, in the case of children receiving public assistance, are used to reimburse the government for benefits it has provided the children.
Deadbroke Black fathers also make nonfinancial contributions—they often take care of their children in ways traditionally associated with motherhood. Because these men are often unemployed (or underemployed), they are available to take their children to school, to the doctor, and to watch them while their mothers work or run errands. Many researchers, myself included, have been surprised to learn that many “absent” Black fathers see their children not only on weekends, as divorced middle-class fathers often do, but often see them almost daily.
The law does not recognize these contributions. They do not count under our current definition of child support. Maybe they should. American society is alarmed at the high percentage of absent fathers—those who have little or no contact with their children. Studies suggest that children with absent fathers are more likely than children with involved fathers to perform poorly in school, to have low self-esteem, to become pregnant at an early age, to abuse drugs, and to engage in delinquent behavior. These children also feel rejected and often blame themselves for their fathers’ disappearance. Although, as Professor Dorothy Roberts has noted, policymakers have treated paternal absence “as a distinctly Black problem,” recent studies have found that poor, nonresident Black fathers are more involved with their children than are nonresident white or Latino fathers. Many men with child support arrears, however, are compelled to hide from their children because they fear detection by child support enforcement officials and possible incarceration. If society wants to encourage more Black men to remain a part of their children’s lives, we must address an unintended effect of aggressive child support enforcement policies—they drive poor fathers away from their children.
Notably, many Black mothers seem to recognize the nonmonetary contributions that poor Black fathers make. They often do not pursue poor Black fathers for child support and focus instead on securing fathers’ presence and involvement with their children. Some Black mothers fear that pursuing deadbroke fathers for payments that they cannot make will discourage them from seeing their children and from contributing at all. As one Black mother stated: “I don’t care about the child support. Just see the child.”
This does not mean that deadbroke fathers should be exempt from paying child support. Children need food, shelter, medical care, etc. and in-kind and nonfinancial contributions are just not enough. Further, Americans have made it clear that we have no desire to support other people’s children. However, before pursuing deadbroke men for child support payments that they cannot make, the law should take steps to help these men obtain the skills needed to secure stable and decent paying jobs so that they can support themselves and their children. In the meantime, or until we come up with a better solution, we might want to consider crediting poor fathers for in-kind and nonmonetary contributions as child support. It might encourage more fathers to see their children more frequently—a benefit to children that, unlike child support, is “priceless.”
