Michigan program ignored possible effects on children

No contest: Michigan program ignored possible effects on children
By Lindsye Forson
Thursday, November 4, 2004

The state of Michigan recently launched a "crackdown on deadbeats," a
program designed to find and prosecute noncustodial parents behind on paying
child support. While the program's aims are admirable, some of its methods
are heavily flawed.

Included in the crackdown was a billboard campaign that encouraged custodial
parents and children to draw pictures that "clearly convey the message of
encouraging the payment of child support," according to Fox News. The first
250 entries were awarded Domino's Pizza gift certificates, while the winner
was slated to have his drawing displayed on a billboard.

After a barrage of complaints, however, the billboard contest was canceled.
While canceling the contest was undoubtedly the correct course of action,
many children had already submitted drawings and thus had been affected by
the program. It is unfortunate that a number of children have likely been
adversely affected by a state program, which, although almost certainly had
good intentions, lacked foresight and discretion.

It's worth noting that a vast majority of custodial parents are mothers; as
such, most "deadbeat" parents behind on paying child support are fathers. To
see this point illustrated, one must look no further than the program's Web
site, www.paykids.com. The site features a list of the state's "Most Wanted"
deadbeats, including the accused perpetrator's name and amount owed, with
alternating pictures of the offenders atop the list. Every name and picture
is of a male.

This adds another angle to an already problematic contest: In nearly every
scenario, the program entails a mother working with her child to design an
"artistic" depiction of what should befall deadbeats, which one can easily
predict more often than not would use the child's father as subject.

In her ifeminist.com column, Wendy McElroy has this to say about the
contest's implications: "When a divorce lands in court, children should be
insulated as much as possible from adult decisions like alimony and support
payments. They should not be bribed with pizzas into becoming part of a
legal enforcement process against one parent." McElroy is right, because to
make a child feel responsible for the situation between his parents -
financial or otherwise - is highly objectionable.

Moreover, according to PR Newswire, often-used themes on related Michigan
billboards include "threat of jail time" and "possible conviction." For a
child in a difficult family situation marked by divorce and animosity
between the custodial parent and the one reneging on child support payments,
the last thing such a child would need is to be asked to willingly use
himself as collateral to convict his or her parent of wrongdoing.

In her column, McElroy further wonders, "...if (Michigan Attorney General
Mike) Cox lives up to the threat posed by the handcuffs portrayed on
billboards - if he throws a 'deadbeat' parent in jail - will the child live
forever with a terrible guilt for having participated in that process?"

Indeed, guilt, in addition to a host of other detrimental psychological
effects, seems an inevitable byproduct of encouraging a child to use art as
an impetus to bring about his father's arrest.

In his announcement that the contest would be canceled, Cox said, "The
contest was not meant to be an attempt to turn a child against a parent.
Quite simply, we wanted to employ children's artistic abilities to
positively address a social problem," according to the Web site paykids.com.

This is too little too late. It doesn't take an oracle to foresee that the
contest would turn child against parent; rather, it required only a rational
human being with a rudimentary understanding of cause and effect. Asking a
child to use his creativity to depict his father in handcuffs, with his
mother spearheading the artistic effort is inappropriate on its face. For a
state to interfere in a family to this extent - to help pit parent against
parent and child against parent, to make children feel responsible for the
financial situation of his parents as well as for the punishment of one of
his parents - is simply inexcusable.

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/11/...t-792669.shtml