ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, August 10, 1996 TAG: 9608120015
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEVE RIBBLE
I WOULD like to comment regarding your Aug. 6 news article, ```Deadbeat' law flawed.''
With respect to the heading of the article and the use of the term "flawed,'' if your newspaper is to express opinion on a law or on a particular judge's interpretation of a law, the proper place for that opinion is the editorial page, not the front page. Having said that, let me quickly add that I agree with your opinion of this law, but not for the reasons outlined in the article by staff writer Leslie Taylor.
The fallacy behind the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 is that it's based on the misconception that, in multistate support situations, it's the noncustodial parent who has left the home state. Studies have shown this isn't the case - that typically it's the custodial mother who moves out of state following a divorce. The law, then, was written to address the minority of real-life situations. Therefore, its "flaw" is that it ever became law in the first place.
Indeed, the subject of your article, Lynda Murphy, is the perfect example. Granted a divorce in Texas, she now lives in Virginia, and wants her ex-husband tried in Virginia. What we, the readers, don't know is who moved first, Mr. Murphy or Mrs. Murphy. Did he flee Texas in an effort to elude his financial responsibilities, or did she move first, thereby eliminating her ex-husband's day-to-day involvement in their daughter's upbringing? We don't know because your reporter either forgot to ask or failed to report it.
As a matter of fact, she "forgot" to ask Mr. Murphy anything at all. There's not a single quote from him or his attorney, if he has one, nor any reference to an attempt to reach him for comment. Don't get me wrong - I'm not condoning any of Mr. Murphy's actions. I'm only saying there are two sides to every story, and so far, we've only heard one. And, as is typical of your newspaper, it's the mother's story that gets printed.
Actually, this story has a third and more important side, which the reporter likewise overlooked: the daughter, Erin. Isn't it her welfare that child-support laws are designed to protect? Isn't she the center of all this legal haggling? What is her opinion of all these proceedings? When was the last time she got to spend time with her dad? Again, we don't know.
It's interesting, too, that Mrs. Murphy was granted a divorce in Texas, which is one of only 14 states in our nation that now dictates presumptive joint custody in divorce situations involving children. In passing this legislation, Texas has acknowledged the unique contributions that fathers bring to the upbringing of their children, and Texas has required the courts to respect the father's role in the family. Virginia has yet to follow suit. Had the Murphy divorce taken place last year and Mr. Murphy been given joint custody, I wonder where this family would be today. Would the time, energy and financial resources spent on tracking down the absent father, and would the father's attempts at eluding such efforts, have been channeled toward rearing of the daughter? I'd like to think that would have been the case.
I would also like to address your newspaper's regular use of the term "deadbeat" in reference to noncustodial parents who are in arrears with child-support payments.
In December 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the federal Child Support Office, in response to a memorandum from President Clinton supporting the role of fathers in families, issued a statement of eight goals and principles. One of these principles was "using positive, supportive messages and language regarding fathers and fatherhood in all publications and announcements.''
Since this directive was issued, the CSO hasn't used the phrase "deadbeat parents" or any variation thereof. These people understand the importance of dialogue in trying to resolve these situations, and the negative impact name-calling has on such efforts. I would suggest your newspaper follow suit.
According to a recent survey, 60 percent of those parents who are in arrears simply don't have the financial resources necessary to satisfy court-ordered support payments. You would have us believe these people are deadbeats. I have another expression: "beaten to death.''
Steve Ribble of Salem is a senior programmer analyst at a local insurance company.
LENGTH: Medium: 77 linesby CNB