My God! What just fell off that turnip truck?

By Edwin Cooney

Believe it or not (and I can hardly believe it myself these days), at one time in my life I considered studying constitutional law instead of history! Had I done so, I would now be keenly interested in a decision the US Supreme Court is about to make concerning the right of “deadbeat dads” to be represented by counsel before being sent to jail for noncompliance of a civil court’s decision to pay child support.

The case comes out of South Carolina where Michael Turner faces jail. According to the attorneys representing him pro bono, this is because Turner is poor and unable to meet child support payments demanded by a South Carolina civil court. In a recent article by Ronald B. Mincy and Elaine J. Sorensen of the American Urban Institute, “deadbeat dads” can legitimately be divided into two categories: deadbeats and turnips. Deadbeats don’t pay child support because they won’t. Turnips (identified as such because everyone knows you can’t get blood out of a turnip) don’t pay child support because they are flat broke.

This case interests not only Michael Turner and his ex-wife (who insists he could pay), but constitutional lawyers, sociologists, and especially politicians.

As I understand it, the term “deadbeat dad” was popularized in the 1980s. It was the brainchild of angry moneyed conservatives who, having labeled female welfare recipients “welfare queens,” needed a label to describe their ex-lovers and husbands. The issue at the time the “deadbeat dad” categorization was born had more to do with the high cost of welfare than it had to do with the healthy relationship between fathers and children.

A century and a half ago you can be sure that among the noble pioneers who settled the west, there were hundreds of thousands of “deadbeat dads” who left destitute wives and children back east never to return. You can be sure too that among the brave men who made the “supreme sacrifice” in two world wars, there were both heroic soldiers and “deadbeat dads.” Their spouses and children were often sustained on the farms of their parents and grandparents so that they would never be a burden to the taxpayer. However, they, like the spouses and children of today’s deadbeat parents, were the victims of dysfunctional relationships.

As I see it, finger-pointing and labeling people misses the mark.

No one should ever go to jail for being poor. If they are in contempt of a court order, there ought to be a hearing with both sides being represented by counsel. Additionally, the state should provide job training and assistance in job acquisition to families that are in danger. Be that as it may, the real victim of dysfunctional coupling isn’t the taxpayer -- it’s the innocent child of that passion.

I never knew either of my biological parents. Both of my biological parents paid more taxes than they paid attention to me and I received a fine education. However, the plain truth is that until humankind can find a way to prevent pregnancies brought on by dysfunctional passion, emotionally and physically hungry children will continue to be among us.

One of the most unfortunate realities in America today is that society is primarily interested in your money -- not your passion, your concern, your convictions, or your commitment. Furthermore, it is far less interested today than it was before 1981in whether you can earn the money you need. Since society is primarily interested in your money, it assumes that you and I as individuals are mostly interested in money. Hence, office seekers inevitably appeal to your need to protect your money rather than finding ways of involving you to be a positive resource in civic problem solving.

As a voter, are you more often encouraged to stop “evil baby killers” or are you more often urged to adopt an unwanted child? Are you more often encouraged to vote against funding public education or are you more often encouraged to keep illegal immigrants out of the public schools? As a voter, are you more often encouraged to be angry or are you more often encouraged to be a Good Samaritan? Finally, does our political leadership appeal to your resentment or does it appeal to your capacity for energetic creativity?

If it weren’t for the forward-looking and optimistic taxpayers of the nineteen forties, fifties, sixties and seventies, or more specifically, if it weren’t for the existence of a once happy and generous America, my life and the lives of many blind, disabled and orphaned children who were once my school and dormitory mates would be substantially poorer in quality than they are today.

Let’s see now! What did just come tumbling off that turnip truck? Geez Louise! It’s a proud taxpayer!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY