Item from the Smart Marriages Archive, reproduced in the Divorce Statistics Collection

---

President's Program for Fathers Misses Mark

February 29, 2000 Washington Times

Dr. Wade F. Horn
President, The National Fatherhood Initiative



Shortly after the President released his proposed 2001 budget, a
friend
of mine called me from a Governor's office in the midwest. "You must be
pretty pleased," he opened confidently. "He's proposing a bunch of new
money
for fatherhood programs."

"Actually," I answered, "I think his fatherhood initiative does more
harm
than good."

"Really?" my friend replied incredulously, "But I thought you were in
the
fatherhood business."

My friend, of course, is correct. As President of the National
Fatherhood Initiative, I am in the fatherhood business. And President
Clinton did propose a bunch of new money for fatherhood programs -- $125
million to be exact. So why am I not jumping up and down with excitement
over his new fatherhood program?

Let's begin with the good news. The President's budget, as have all
presidents' budgets since, I think, George Washington's, includes a lot
of
"get tough on deadbeat dads" initiatives, including "booting" the cars of
delinquent payers, intercepting gambling winnings to collect past-due
child
support, and denying passports to parents who owe $2,500 or more in child
support.

Nothing wrong with getting tough on deadbeat parents. Any
non-custodial
parent who has the ability to help support financially his or her
children
and does not, gets no sympathy from me. Children don't ask to come into
this
world. When we become parents, we incur an obligation to do all we can
to
support our children, and that includes financial support. That
obligation
doesn't end simply because a marriage does -- or because a marriage
doesn't
happen in the first place.

But life is more complicated than is suggested by "deadbeat dad"
rhetoric
alone. Some non-custodial parents are more "dead broke" than "deadbeat."

Others have not so much "walked away" as they have been "pushed away."

Interestingly, the President's budget takes a giant step toward
recognizing these complexities, for in addition to efforts to "get tough
on
deadbeat parents," it also includes a program to help low-income,
non-custodial parents -- mostly fathers -- get jobs, pay child support,
and
reconnect with their children.

So what's my problem? Sounds like a pretty good idea, doesn't it?

Well, not really. The problem with the President's fatherhood
proposal
is this: It punishes fathers who get married. Here's how.

Suppose you are running a program under the President's proposal and
a
24-year-old, unwed father walks into your office. He grew up in a
low-income
neighborhood, is under-educated, and marginally employed. But he is now
a
father and wants to do right by his child. He asks for your help getting
a
steady job so that he can better fulfill his child support obligations
and
wants to learn how to be a good dad. Can you help, he asks?

You bet, you reply. We have a wonderful program for you. We will
help
improve your job skills and find you a decent job. Once employed, we
will
provide you with an on-going supportive employment program to increase
the
likelihood that you will keep your job. And we also have a peer support
program to help you learn the skills necessary to be an involved father.

Great, this young man says, sign me up.

Now imagine that soon after this young father leaves your office,
another
young man comes into the room. He, too, is 24-years-old and from a
low-income neighborhood. He, too, is under-educated and marginally
employed.
He, too, is now a father and wants to do right by his child. Can you
help,
he asks?

Before you answer, "of course," imagine there is this one little
difference between these two young men. Imagine the second guy is
married to
the mother and is living with his children. Under the President's
proposal,
you would have to say there's nothing you can do for him.

What, the guy answers, but my buddy was just in here. We live in the
same neighborhood, earn the same amount of money, and our kids are the
same
age. How come you can help him, but not me?

Well, you answer, you're married. He's not. This program is for
low-income, non-custodial fathers only.

What, this second young man asks, do I have to do to get the same
services?

Your reply -- if you are honest -- would have to be this: Divorce the
mother and move out.

The reason you would have to answer this way is because the
President's
proposal, well-meaning though it might be, limits eligibility to
low-income,
non-custodial fathers. Programs funded under such an approach would have
to
hang up a sign at the door saying, "Married fathers need not apply." I
can't
think of anything that would be worse for fathers, mothers, and children
than
that.

To be fair, the President has not yet submitted legislative language
for
his fatherhood initiative. There is still time for the President and his
advisors to rethink this ill-conceived idea to restrict eligibility to
non-married, low-income fathers.

But unless a fix is made, making both single and married low-income
fathers eligible, this proposal is worse than nothing. We've seen the
devastation that 70 years of welfare largely restricted to unmarried
mothers
has wrought. It would be a shame if we spend the next 70 years repeating
that mistake with fathers.

---

| Smart Marriages Archive | New Divorce Statistics and Studies Blog | Older Divorce Statistics Collection Archive |