Black Familes, Child Support and Bill Cosby: Black Scholars Debate the Issue

by Jimi Izrael

Singer Sean Levert, serving a 22-month term for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support, is dead after being found unresponsive in his jail cell. The family is asking the FBI to investigate, but Levert should have never been in jail in the first place—men shouldn't be put in jail for non-payment of support.

For those unfamiliar with the law, men who are $2500.00 or more in arrears in their child support payments (based on approximately 15% of the man's gross income) can have their driver's license revoked, their property sold at auction or in some cases, be put in jail. Sure—there are a lot of irresponsible fathers out there who don't want to be responsible for their children. More often than not, fathers become unemployed. And if you happen to get a job making less money, child support agencies are not inclined to lower your obligation. Some men pay what they can, but if you are obligated to pay $490 a month in support, and can only pay $200, the $290 gets tacked on. So the following month, you owe $780 smackers, but can still only pay $200.

See how easy it is to get behind?

Child support agencies enforce a woman's right to money but not a man's right to see his kids. Women are not obligated to allow the father to see his children, and are rewarded with public assistance for having as many babies as possible, to the extent that it's become a hustle of sorts and a strain on resources.

When Sean and I talked for an article I wrote, he very pointedly didn't mention his children on the record. Off the record, we talked and laughed about our respective baby-mama drama. I went to school with Sean, and I'm going to miss his big, Levert laugh and sad to see him go under such undignified circumstances. He should not have been in jail.

I'm not saying that men don't need be held accountable, but the child support solution has to be fair to all parties involved.

Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?


Response to Jimi Izrael from Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University

Melissa,On Friday, I read an interesting and provocative blog post by our Root colleague Jimi Izrael. In his post, Izrael argues that the current child support laws are disproportionately stacked against the interests of men. I agree with Izrael that we need to reform current child support laws. In the current moment, as William Julius Wilson notes, child support laws serve as a “labor tax” that dissuade Black men from working traditional jobs. This is particularly true for previously incarcerated men, whose wages can be garnished up to 66 percent in order to repay outstanding support.

Unfortunately, the popular notion of the “deadbeat dad”, like the welfare queen of the 1980s, obscures the more fundamental problem: structural barriers to gainful employment. For this reason, we need to develop more realistic and humane approaches to child support for economically disadvantaged people.On the other hand, I disagree with Izrael’s argument that men should never be placed in jail for not paying support. Take, for example, Sean Levert, who died tragically while serving a 22-month prison sentence for felony non-payment of $85,000 in child support. While Izrael says that he shouldn’t have been in jail in the first place, I can’t imagine any alternative for someone who so wantonly ignores his responsibility.

Perhaps I’m biased because I pay child support every month while many of the brothers I know go to extravagant lengths to avoid taking care of their kids. Are some of these men experiencing financial trouble? No doubt. This is why I support government subsidies and debt forgiveness for people who truly need it. But many of the men I know, even those who earn solid middle class wages, are simply unwilling to make basic sacrifices in order to ensure that their child has food, clothing, and shelter. Would they let their children live on the streets? Probably not. But anything short of that means that it’s the mother’s responsibility. What do you think Melissa?

Is Jimi Izrael right that the law is too tough? Am I having a Bill Cosby moment over here in the way I’m critiquing men? Also, Jimi Izrael concludes by asking “Shouldn't we also hold women accountable for their irresponsible behavior? What does that look like?” How would you answer that question?


Response from Melissa Harris-Lacewell, Princeton University

Marc,I am having a little trouble responding to your call because fire is shooting out of my fingers and smoke out of my ears after reading Jimi’s blog.

I am not even a little bit objective and detached on this issue. I am a divorced mother and my solidly middle class, ex-husband has consistently paid half of his court ordered support for years. I don’t want to lock him up, but I wouldn’t mind kicking him in the leg with my best stilettos.

From where I stand irresponsibility is not the only possible explanation for single parenting. I did everything “right.” I dated my ex-husband for five years, finished my degree, got married, bought a house and then got pregnant and had my daughter. Still, I find myself living as a single parent. Life is complicated, none of us is fully autonomous and even good choices can lead to tough circumstances.

The law is not about punishing a parent for irresponsibility. The law is meant to protect the best interests of children. I am firmly convinced that in the vast majority of circumstances children’s best interests are served by ensuring that the non-custodial parent provides substantial financial support.

Paying this support will require discomfort and sacrifice. I assure you that being the custodial parent requires discomfort and sacrifice of all kinds.

I am no Bill Cosby and I don’t think we can behave our way to racial equality. On the other hand I know that the reason black folks in America have anything at all is because our mothers, fathers, aunties, grandpas and nanas did their very best even within the tremendously difficult circumstances they encountered. For our children we must do the same thing.

I believe that the interests of children are best served by establishing loving bonds with both parents. Assuming there is no abuse, our kids do best when they are allowed to love both parents unconditionally, no matter the failures and weaknesses of those parents. These bonds are nurtured through time, visits, phone calls, letters and even emails. It is the absent parent’s responsibility to initiate these encounters. It is the custodial parent’s responsibility to facilitate them.

We also foster these bonds by controlling the selfish impulse to speak negatively about the other parent. My mouth sometimes bleeds from biting my tongue in my daughter’s presence, but I believe that loving her dad and feeling loved by him are critically important to her sense of self.

That said, I think the courts are a terrible place for conducting the work of parenting. Jimi is absolutely wrong that courts are universally biased against fathers. The stories are too long, ugly and painful to tell, but I have seen the courts allow angry, vengeful parents to use children as tools of harassment rather than as subjects of loving concern. Fathers do this as much as mothers.

Courts care little for the complicated, personal, nuanced circumstances of our lives. Hear this: paying your support makes a hell of al lot more sense that paying a lawyer to get you out of paying your support. The support goes to enrich the life of your child, the court fees just make the lawyers rich.

Many matters of government policy affect the quality of lives for our children. Most of our kids are relegated to shockingly unequal public schools. Many must live in unsafe neighborhoods marked by crime, environmental hazards and daily reminders of hopelessness. Even our privileged kids are constantly navigating landmines of racial difference and anxiety that tears at the fabric of their self-esteem. As parents, let’s stop trying to punish each other and get focused on sacrificing for our kids so that we buffer them from these assaults.