Introduction

Baltimore, father, age 34:
"I never had a dad, a father. Yeah I had role models like uncles, my grandfather, but still your own father is supposed to be important. It's like with your own father you should have some sort of link. I never had that, but my kids, I want them to know me even though I'm not with them everyday"

The faces of poor, unwed fathers tell similar stories. Some of their tales are just beginning: the stories of pain and confusion of young adolescent fathers who are vilified by parents, grandparents, and teachers for getting so-and-so pregnant. Others' stories have long moved past that rude introduction and on to a plot that seems forever depressing: fathers in their twenties and older, who are unable to support their children. These fathers hear many people say their children "should never have come into this world with such a weak daddy." The refrain, "I knew you would mess up--you're just like your father," rings constantly in their ears and shows on their faces.

This condemnation takes its toll. They come to expect judgment and lectures on responsibility. And from the government they expect to be discouraged from involvement in their children's lives. Why do current policies have this effect? And how can policy be constructed and enforced in a way that encourages male involvement? The Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy (CFFPP) decided to ask the people whose answers to these questions are rarely sought: poor, unwed fathers.

CFFPP interviewed 71 fathers either in focus groups or individually. The interviews took place in Chicago, Baltimore, and Los Angeles. Ninety percent of the fathers were current participants in programs specifically targeted to low income fathers. However, with the exception of one Chicago-based program, no program had procedures to address the child support issues confronted by the participating fathers.

CFFPP's goal was to explore from the ground up the impact of public policy on low-income, never-married, noncustodial fathers. The findings of the project are not startling: the fathers are poor and struggling, the mothers are poor and struggling, and the children are, despite the parents' need to claim otherwise, dependent on both mother and father. But because these findings are based on interviews, they provide an extremely rare opportunity to take the crucial first step in crafting effective, fair policies that encourage father involvement: an understanding of the real-life implications of many well-intended policies.

Who Are These Fathers?

In 1994 more than 15 million children lived in poverty. Many of these children were born outside marriage and continue to live with only one parent, usually their mother. In 1992, 46 percent of all mother-headed households had incomes below the poverty threshold. Recently enacted federal welfare reform legislation is designed to push those single mothers who depend on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) off the public dole and into the workforce.

A primary component of this legislation is to ensure that each child's legal father pays child support. For most children, the first step in collecting child support--establishing their paternity--is not a problem; more than half of all children receiving AFDC are marital births, and 25 percent of all children born outside marriage enter the system with paternity already established. However states have been unable to collect child support for the rest of the AFDC population because paternity is not established. In any given year, of those children who receive AFDC and need paternity established, the state completes this task for only 18 percent of such cases.

Furstenberg, Sherwood and Sullivan's report, Caring and Paying: What Fathers and Mothers Say About Child Support (1992), which was part of the Parents' Fair Share Demonstration Project (PFS), is a qualitative study that provides a crucial step to understanding how unmarried, disadvantaged fathers view both their financial and emotional responsibility to their children. In Caring and Paying, low-income noncustodial fathers, irrespective of race, supported the notion that fathers should be providers as well as nurturers. However through detailed interviews, the authors clearly document that, while sharing the aforementioned belief, these same fathers approach and deal with their paternal responsibilities in drastically different ways. Some, although erratically employed and discouraged by their family, the mother's (of their child) family, and peers, work hard to meet both their emotional and financial responsibility. Others, however, walk away from these responsibilities, and they see little hope of ever being what they consider a responsible father.

The fathers interviewed for Face to Face ranged in age from 17 to 36. Fifty-one of the fathers are African-American, 18 are Latino/Chicano, and two are white. Twenty-three had established paternity and had an existing child support order, while 48 had not established paternity. Of the 48 that had not established paternity, 35 reported that at some point there had been some agreement with the mother that she not report him to child support enforcement.

The fathers discussed here mirror the primary findings of Furstenberg's research and other literature on poor, never-married fathers. The existing body of research demonstrates that these fathers face many barriers to becoming providers to their children. Namely, these fathers have low incomes due to chronic unemployment and unstable work patterns which result primarily from low educational levels and racial discrimination in the labor market. Nonetheless, the qualitative literature that does exist clearly shows that poor, unmarried fathers have strong feelings about being more than just a financial provider for their children; they want to be role models, teaching their children values they deem important. However, most poor, unmarried fathers, especially younger fathers, know little about the child support enforcement system.

Specifically, these fathers fail to understand the process by which paternity is established and support orders are created and modified. In addition, although these fathers express an interest in visitation and custody issues few understand how to broach these topics within the system.

Individual work and education histories were not collected on the fathers interviewed by CFFPP. However, given the participation criteria of the programs they attended, no father had more than a high school education and most were either unemployed or underemployed. In talking about their inability to form stable relationships with their children, many fathers noted experiencing periods of homelessness and/or drug dependency. Moreover those fathers who were employed at the time of the interview often attempted to explain at great length the difficult decisions they were forced to make because of their low income: "Do I or my child survive? I can't support both him and me."

How Does Public Policy Discourage Father Involvement?

She got pregnant, you see, and we was still in high school. We were a good couple, so I wasn't too pressed about it; I was 18, she was 17. I graduated from high school (I could've done better), but I couldn't find any work. We moved in together when she got on [AFDC], and I was working fast food. I didn't want her to lie, but we couldn't afford it otherwise, you know, rent and other stuff. I know it was wrong-her lying about it and all-but what was I supposed to do? She been good about it, she hasn't gave them nothing on me, and she's been on [AFDC] for four years
-Father, age 22, Baltimore, Maryland

With little education and few marketable skills, the poor, never-married fathers that CFFPP interviewed operate on the margins, away from their families and their children. In some ways, the most tragic part is that many of the factors that drive these fathers to the margin are beyond their control. Here's why: current public policy that governs income and social support programs has systematically ignored the needs of low-income men who have fathered children outside of marriage. Moreover, it has created a situation in which poor unmarried couples with children are better off if they don't live together as a family--or if they say they don't. Contrary to popular rhetoric, neither the father nor the mother in the overwhelming majority of these couples is morally capricious, deciding to have children one minute and then choosing to ignore their needs the next. Instead, these couples react rationally to public policy constraints by not marrying and not establishing legal paternity; they do what they have to do in order to maximize the resources available to them and their children.

How Do Families Cope?

There is a pattern that emerges from the ways in which some poor unwed couples respond to the system. The mother, acting as the custodial parent, applies for AFDC and other support services on behalf of herself and the children. Upon doing so, the mother is expected to cooperate with the agency that administers the state's AFDC program by revealing the identity and whereabouts of the biological father so that the state can issue a child support order, collect payment from the father and issue checks to the mother. When a child is born outside of marriage, legal paternity must be established before the state can issue a child support order. The presumed father must be legally confirmed as the father either through genetic testing or by the mutual consent of the mother and father. For most parents who need AFDC support long term, paternity is never established; the parents fear that the father will not be able to keep up payments, or, like the father quoted above, wish to avoid the illusion that the government, not the father, is paying child support. Another important reason that paternity is not established is that many parents believe that AFDC benefits will automatically be denied if the parents live together or marry. So in some cases, by keeping the father's identity a secret, couples prevent the state from finding out that they live together and withdrawing benefits.

Many of the fathers (35) interviewed for the study, report that they do all they can, often with the help of the mother, to avoid ever establishing paternity. In exchange for the mother's cooperation, these fathers report providing financial support directly to the mother or agreeing to buy necessary items for the child during the times they are employed. Moreover, the 23 fathers who had established paternity reported that the mothers often assist them in avoiding the long arm of the child support enforcement office. Again, these fathers noted that, in exchange for the mother's cooperation, they provide some financial support, albeit inconsistent, to the mothers. These fathers stressed that they were not deadbeat dads; they avoid establishing paternity either because they cannot pay or conversely, because their families are better off when they provide support outside of the formal child support system. One Baltimore father, age 24, attempted to differentiate between himself from deadbeat dads: "I'm not ashamed of my situation. If I had plenty of money, I'd never let my kids and their mothers have to struggle. But, you see, deadbeat dads just don't care one way or the other".

The net result of this collusion among low-income mothers and fathers is tragic. The couple's rational attempt to stabilize the fathers' role and maximize resources in many cases subjects the mother to the possibility of welfare fraud charges and losing all benefits. And the father, in many cases, lives in emotional exile from his family, because his presence would bring them financial hardship. However, the same fathers who report having, at some point, a collusive relationship with the mother also note that it is abated once there is a breakdown in their relationship with the mother. At that point, they report having, over time, less and less to do with both the mother and the child even though they still desire a relationship with the child.

Nonetheless, both established and non-established fathers had little concern that the mother would actively assist child support enforcement officials in tracking them down. For example, one Los Angeles father, age 27, expressed this belief in the following manner: "She's got to do what's best for her. She could assist them, but it wouldn't make it any better for her and the kid. Plus, she really don't want me around anymore. So why help welfare track me down?"

Can't nobody tell me I don't do for my kid. Now, I know I don't pay [through the government]--why should I? But I do for him. You see, I want my boy to know that I paid for his shoes, his clothes-not the state of California.
-father, age 28, Los Angeles, California

The Need for a New Paradigm

Many people, including welfare advocates, view noncustodial fathers such as the one quoted below as opportunists; they say these fathers stay with the family at first, benefiting from the support that the mother receives on behalf of the children, but will eventually move on and ignore their financial and emotional responsibility to the mother and the children. On the other hand, a growing body of researchers, policy advocates, and social service practitioners see the father as the abandoned subject. In their view, the father unable to qualify for public assistance of any kind, falls victim to a system that conspires to keep him disenfranchised from his family and the mainstream economy.

Although there are research findings that support each of these views, a third option must be considered if policy related to poor unwed fathers is to become family-supportive. In order to reach this middle ground, everyone concerned about survival of low-income, fragile families must first reconsider the assumptions that they make about both parents, especially the father.

More specifically, we must acknowledge that although many fathers fail to establish paternity and thus never pay formal child support, and often have tenuous relationships with their children, they, like all parents, do in fact want to be a positive force in their children's lives.

The goal of all social policies must be to support parents, irrespective of marital status, so that they can raise healthy children. Yet many concerned individuals who claim to be acting in the best interests of the child continue to propose policy with only two dimensions: support for one parent and enforcement measures for the other. Policy makers must recognize the need for policies that support custodial and noncustodial parents, providing enforcement when it is necessary, but guided by a desire for the well being of the family. For all low income families, reaching this common ground is critical.

I don't pay no child support order, but we sort of got it worked out. If she needs something, she calls me and lets me know and I try to raise it. I watch my girl when her mother has to do something. I even get my mom to help out, if I can't do it. But if I paid support to the court, I sure wouldn't be able to give her stuff like I do now, and I know her, she wouldn't let me be around like I am now.
-Father, age 2l, Chicago, Illinois

Solutions: A Policy Option

The mother, she's been having problems, so I've had the girl for about six months now. And I went down to social services, with my baby girl--so they could really see that I had her--and said, "Look I have her, can I get on aid?" They said no. I don't care. I don't need them.
--Father, age 22, Baltimore, Maryland

In order for child support agencies to be truly effective for low-income families, they must be more creative in their attempts to reach low-income men. As previously noted, the never-married father has no legal responsibility for his children until paternity is established.

And to low-income, never-married fathers, paternity establishment is the trap door for Child Support Enforcement (CSE). Therefore the paternity establishment rate for AFDC-dependent families has stayed relatively low, despite the advent of streamlined administrative procedures for paternity establishment, such as establishing paternity in the hospital upon the child's birth.

This reality has frustrated policy makers who view child support enforcement as a vital link to other antipoverty strategies. Consequently, recent welfare reform (i.e., The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996) calls for a custodial mother to face stiffer sanctions if she is deemed uncooperative because she refuses to help identify and locate the biological father. In addition, this new welfare law will put more pressure on state child support enforcement agencies by setting mandatory paternity establishment rates; each state has to increase their paternity establishment rates every year until they reach 90 percent. Unfortunately, many policy makers feel that punitive measures are the only way to increase paternity establishment rates for AFDC families. They're wrong.

Most of the fathers who participated in the CFFPP interviews said that paternity establishment is not something they fear. What they do fear is life after paternity establishment: "What if I can't pay anymore?" wondered one father. "What if I can't afford the order they give me? I heard about a guy who, after they took out his [child] support, only took home $75 a week. That is not going to happen to me, no way."

A number of local programs and demonstration projects have shown that fathers establish paternity if they have some guarantee that they will be able to manage the entire process and the risks that can accompany it. All of the fathers interviewed by CFFPP indicated that enhanced paternity establishment--a guarantee that when they establish paternity they will have access to education and training opportunities, job placement assistance, parenting classes, and assistance in dealing with child support enforcement officials--would turn them around on the issue of paternity establishment. An important part of family-supportive child support enforcement is providing advocates to assist fathers through difficulties. Although most fathers indicated that securing stable employment was their main priority, more than 75 percent said they would establish paternity and pay child support if they had someone representing them during the process, someone they could ask questions without fearing negative repercussions for themselves and their families. Consequently, CFFPP believes that child support enforcement agencies must strategically collaborate with select community-based programs that serve low-income, never-married fathers. By putting the responsibility of paternity establishment in the hands of community-based practitioners, CSE officials take a progressive step to eliminating one of the barriers that exist for low-income fathers: lack of trust.

Of course, much more than paternity establishment, enhanced or otherwise, is needed to truly meet the needs of low-income fathers and their families. If future public policy initiatives are to be constructive and sustaining for all families, a new paradigm must emerge in which each member of the family is seen as an individual, yet as crucial to the viability of the whole.

Moreover we must begin to challenge our assumptions about low-income, noncustodial fathers, and to move beyond our biases regarding what they can or should contribute to the family. The first step to accomplishing this task is for each of us to disassociate the monolithic, grotesque image of the "deadbeat dad" from the many fathers who have little to no choice concerning their reality, their story.

Back to Top