Some debts are more immoral

Think we don't have debtors prison in these enlightened times? Well, think again.

Not only are deadbeat dads routinely imprisoned, but via Dr. Helen, I just learned about an incident in which the "dad" went to prison for a child that wasn't his:

Frank Hatley, 50, spent 13 months in jail for being a deadbeat dad before his release last month. A judge ordered him jailed in June 2008 for failing to support his "son" -- a child who DNA tests proved was not fathered by Hatley.

Last week, Cook County Superior Court Judge Dane Perkins signed an order stating, "defendant is no longer responsible for paying any amount of child support." The order permits the state's Office of Child Support Services to close its file on Hatley.

"We're satisfied with the result for Mr. Hatley, but still troubled by the state's monumental lapse of judgment in this case," attorney Sarah Geraghty with the Atlanta-based Southern Center for Human Rights told CNN in a written statement. Hatley did not immediately return a call from CNN Tuesday.

His story dates back to 1986, when Hatley had a relationship with Essie Lee Morrison, who gave birth to a son. According to court documents, Morrison told Hatley the child was his, but the two ended their relationship shortly after the child was born. The couple never married and never lived together, the documents said.

When the child turned 2, Morrison applied for public support for the child. Under Georgia law, the state, can recoup the cost of the assistance from a child's non-custodial parent.

For 13 years, Hatley made payments to the state until learning in 2000 that the boy might not be his. A DNA test that year confirmed the child was not fathered by Hatley, court documents said.

The state maintains that he still owes his back payments and is not entitled to a refund of any of the payments he's made, since he made them under a consent agreement based upon the belief the child was his. (Which is like saying that if you're overcharged for taxes on income you never earned but you pay under the mistaken belief you do owe the taxes, that's just too damned bad.)

As to the nature of imprisoning people for debt, I'm curious about the theories of immorality. The idea behind debtor's prison was that it was a form of dishonesty to promise to pay money and then not pay it. I can see that, although it's a bit weak, because many people get into debt because of circumstances unforseen at the time of the obligation, and if the result is economic ruin, they can find themselves unable to pay. Also, it takes two to create debt, and while you can always say the borrower did a stupid job of running his affairs, it's also stupid to loan money to an obviously bad risk. If I lent $500.00 to a homeless wino I met on the street and then expressed surprise when he failed to pay me back as promised, most people would rightly consider me more foolish than the wino.

It also takes two to have a child, yet for reasons which have never been clear to me, only men are treated as the responsible party. Let's compare the creation of a child support obligation to the creation of ordinary debt. Unlike most borrowers, who read and sign documents before credit is ever extended to them, a baby results from sexual intercourse between two people, usually in the heat of emotional passion, and often when the parties have been imibining in mood-altering substances of one form or another. They do not know with any degree of certainty that a baby will result; in fact the vast majority of coital acts do not result in pregnancy. By what standard, then, is the failure -- especially by a non-custodial parent -- to honor the obligation to support a child so much more morally egregious than the failure to abide by a legal contract entered into at arm's length? Simply because there is a child? If that were the case, then why isn't the mother also obligated to pitch in? Furthermore, the mother is legally entitled to get out of the entire obligation -- either by abortion before the baby is born, or by adoption afterwards. The father has absolutely no say, and a non-custodial father has less than no say.

But let's assume that the insemination of a woman (if it happens to lead to the creation of a child) is more culpable than the signing of a loan document. How do we get from there to it being a criminal offense with imprisonment as the penalty? Any why only for the man, who had no right to ameliorate the situation by offering the child up for adoption, and who likewise has no right to participate in raising the child? It's as if it's his child only for the purpose of paying the state, but for no other purpose, while the mother always gets to be the mother, gets money from the state, and owes the state nothing in return.

Little wonder that some men consider that monthly check the mother gets to be partially theirs. After all, if it weren't for their contribution, the child who creates the income stream wouldn't exist!

On a last but only peripherally related point, notice that the state took the mother at her word as to the father's identity. No doubt he is listed on the birth certificate. People do lie about such things, and they form the basis for government records. How many people know to a scientific certainty that their mama didn't lie? How many readers have had their DNA tested?

(I can't imagine why I would think such a silly point is worthy of discussion, though....)

posted by Eric on 08.12.09 at 05:24 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8645






Comments

How do we get from there to it being a criminal offense with imprisonment as the penalty?

Maybe because if they're irresponsible enough not to pay for their own sprogs nothing much else is likely to work on 'em.

That's about as far as I go in making excuses for the ludicrous inequality in treatment of the sexes. Both parent should be held equally accountable for the kid.

apotheosis   ·  August 12, 2009 06:51 PM

Wait until they figure out how to bring back indentured servants via debt bondage.

True story, my step-father's great to the something grandfather came over on the Mayflower as an indentured servant. That ancestor has a house at Plymouth Plantation but he's never there.

Obviously trying to skip out on his debt.

Veeshir   ·  August 12, 2009 09:20 PM

In genealogy, this is called a "non-paternal event" which is sort of silly as obviously somebody was the daddy.

We had my father's DNA tested because we could find nothing beyond his great-grandfather and that was the phrase used as a possible explanation for why his DNA didn't come anywhere close to the thousands of others with his last name who had been tested.

It did match very closely with another last name, thus the suggestion that the last name wasn't gained in the traditional way.

Donna B.   ·  August 13, 2009 05:01 AM

Imprisonment for failure to pay child support is punitive and retributive in nature, in fact if not in original intent. Men can't work in jail, and often lose their jobs, vehicles or professional licenses for being jailed. Therefore, making them pay up can't be the functional reason for imprisonment.

Further, payroll garnishmnent is an effective enough tool that in many cases, if the money isn't being paid its because it isn't being made in the first place. I worked with a guy years ago who was effectively homeless (friends' couches, not under bridges homeless) and without a vehicle because his court-ordered support consumed practically all his wages. No appeal; pay or go to jail. There's a vague feeling among a lot of men that "deadbeat dads" had it coming, and it can't happen to them, but those kind of things happen routinely, they just don't make the news.

As far as paternity numbers, one source says 2% of the general population in America have misplaced paternity, but the figure goes up to 30% among fathers who suspect enough to have a private test done. That's down from earlier reports going as high as 10% of the general population. Apparently it poses an ethical problem for doctors administering new dna tests for diseases: tell both parents? tell the mother only? tell the adult child? tell the underage child? A quandary.

Given the consequences on display in the article linked, I'd say test if you have any doubts at all. $100 test, cotton swab to the cheek; the mother never even has to know, and if it comes back wrong get a good lawyer and a professional test done. Incentives are a bitch.

Dave R.   ·  August 17, 2009 03:44 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


August 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits