Talk:Deadbeat parent

Absolutely true. This nasty term is used to tar the non-custodial parent. An estimated 500,000+ are in prison today for the crime of not having enough money to pay their child support. That is a debtor's prison. One of the ironies is that some of the worst non-paying non-custodial parents are mothers. A case-by-case analysis generally discovers that the NCP has lost his/her job, become ill, or otherwise limited in their abilty to earn money. Family Law Judges then "impute" their prior income to the NCP, who cannot pay, and an arrearage mounts until an enforcement action is taken. One of the most famous of these actions was last year in NJ, when Monmouth County jailed Wilbur Street. Street had developed ALS and was confined to a wheelchair. On the second day of his incarceration for a child support arrearage, Street died of ALS.

For more -- The Deadbeat Dad Myth: Strategies and Research in Defense of Men in Divorce. Bender, W.N., and Beneder, R.L. University of Georgia Press, 1990.

"But, like any other past-due debt, the obligee, typically a mother, may forgive what is owed to her."

It has always been my understanding that child support was owed to the child rather than the parent. I don't have a citation for this, but does anyone have anything that backs up the claim that the obligee is the child's guardian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.163.177 (talk • contribs)

In Australia, the debt is payable to the resident parent. Their name appears on Child Support Agency account statements, example, CHILD SUPPORT TO ((name of parent)). I'd scan one for you but the forms contain a lot of personal details and it'd be almost blank by the time I published it online. -- Longhair 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this article is biased. I does not explore reasoning as to why parents do and dont pay. Also the exploration of issues related to bias within child support agencies.

This section is biased. I agree that "deadbeat dads" or "moms" for that matter is an inflammatory term, but I disagree that most parents don't pay because they can't afford it. It may be the case in some areas (states) but many places (and there are places outside the US) have systems where child support is calculated based on the non-custodial parent's income and expenses. Please edit this section!!

Your opinion of why a non-custodial parent does not make child support payments is irrelevant. What matters are the facts, and not opinions in this matter. This is a well researched area, and while there are always exceptions, most of the non-payers cannot pay for one or more reasons, including being in jail. Cia123454321 15:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

This point is factually indisputable.

Louisiana reported that 70% of all arrears are owed by parents making less than $10,000/year.^{[citation needed]}

What does matter is facts. It is indisputable that orders are being made that exceed parents ability to pay.^{[citation needed]}

You will notice the Citation Needed tags on your anonymous comment. I am not disputing what you have stated but if you make a statement of fact please cite your references. --Triad man 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to this article California reports that 71% of the orders are by default. Just another example of deadbeat parents not caring for their children to even go to the court, instead they choose to hide. Individuals hide themselves, money and revenue to not pay childsupport. That 70% figure represents what Louisiana's governments say, but no one can verify that number. Deadbeat parent is really a two fold term. One does not pay and second does not care about their children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.149.55 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Regarding whether or not parents who don't pay can afford to.... It does not make sense to me to assume that parents would prefer incarceration over paying reasonably for the support of their children. Even if they were disinterested in their children's welfare, selfish motivation suggests they'd be better off outside of prison than in.

Low income obligees not only have insufficient income to pay support, they have insufficient income to hire good lawyers to protect (or often, even help them understand) their rights. Most states with the Income Shares CS model do allow for a Self Support Reserve for the non-custodial parent, an amount that get's sheltered from potential assignment to support, but it's usually set at or below the Federal Poverty level.

Higher income obligees that wind up in jail for non-support must either be idiots, not truly high income, or victims of a broken system. I find it hard to believe that the majority of them prefer jail to living in a 1500 sq ft Ranch rather than a 2500 sq ft Colonial.

129.33.1.37 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

While we all have opinions, some more informed than others, it's irrelevant. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.Triad man 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fox News quotes do not reliable sources make, so I've deleted this: "According to Fox News: Non-payment of child support is a significant problem in the United States. According to the Federal Office of Child Support, in 2003, $96 billion in accumulated unpaid support was due to children in the United States; 68 percent of child support cases were in arrears. An overwhelming majority of children, particularly minorities, living in single-parent homes where child support is not paid live in poverty." Unless the author can locate and cite the source Fox News quotes, it has no place here. Kemet 14:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Although the term "deadbeat parent" is mentioned in the intro, the fact that there is no associated article, nor an article for "deadbeat mother" makes this article inherently gender biased. I suggest renaming to "deadbeat parent."

I agree, this article should be renamed, edited to reflect the name change and have deadbeat dad/mom redirected here.Triad man 20:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I may be accused of being PC, but I am a single father who receives no support or involvement from the mother. All of the discussions on the talk page are gender-neutral, shouldn't the title reflect this? Doc Gloom 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it should be deadbeat dads. The vast majority of deadbeats are dads. Where is the discussion of displaced homemakers and abandoned children?

Not that you care, but half my friends (and of course, myself) experienced the joy of deadbeat dads: abandoning us, taking everything (including pictures off the walls and my babysitting money-yes, I saw him do it.), and using us as legal pawns. Actions speak louder than words, though mine said plenty.

Again, not that you care, although the details of our stories vary somewhat, the big picture is the always the same. They leave, don’t pay child support even when they make good money, ask for visitation and custody as a legal ploy. In word and action, they want freedom from parasites. Their life mission is to sleep around, have all they want, and do everything they please. This level of self-entitlement and narcissism is very expensive. Yes, mine was on the prowl during visitation. I know his tastes, line, and MO. After the divorce is final, the deadbeat dads don’t bother to pretend to care about their kids.

It’s amazing how selfish and narcissistic they are. They want to sell our homes, pay no support, and use us but we are supposed be loyal, loving, and respectful. Such hypocrites.

Maybe everybody should stop having inconvenient and expensive offspring. Then everything can be about themselves.

Karma plays the long game. I personally know of five cases. It makes me smile. They earned it.

Sincerely,

Merely One of many Disaffected Disaffected (U earned it!) (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It seems that this section was recently added at the top of this article, claiming that "Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men." While that is probably true in some cases, this assertion is a)unsourced b)given unreasonable prominence in an article that purports to be about the subject of parents who do not fulfill their obligations to pay child support. I think it needs to go, be seriously amended, or put in a place into the article that more accurately reflects that it is a minority point of view and not uniformly true in most cases. The assertion that "forced paternity" is a kind of "domestic violence" seems particularly troublesome and original research to me, as redefining terms with commonly understood meanings is not Wikipedia's purpose. Dina 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the section I've described as it is completely unsourced and, in my view, quite POV in an article that already suffers from POV problems. Here it is Dina 17:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC):Reply

Many "deadbeat dads" are actually victims of forced paternity - a form of domestic violence against men.

Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or his consent constitutes domestic violence. Domestic violence, whether against women or men, can take a physical form, or can take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common forms of non-physical domestic violence against men.

Many people ignore or minimize the importance of non-physical domestic violence, even though

    (1)it may be far more common,  
    (2)it may induce more severe suffering, and 
    (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims' lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist stereotypes and role expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control, and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against men, induces under-reporting and stigma, and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective contraception, and emergency contraception.

After a bit of research I'd like to suggest that the title of this article be changed to "noncompliant payers of child support". Awkward yes, and a redirect from "deadbeat dad" should remain, as that is, frankly, at least in the U.S. the more "common" term. But I agree that as a title for an article "deadbeat dad" is both inherently POV and unencyclopedic. Dina 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article starts by saying the term is primarily used in the US, then refers to the child support agency in the UK. Also - it's a matter of fact that - although the article defines the meaning of the term reasonably well (if not a little too broadly) - the term as used referred to pretty much all divorced and never married fathers, and was strongly linked even more generally to anti-male rhetoric. The myth that fathers often abandon mothers and children was predicated on the idea that all men are selfish pigs (if I may use that term simply for the sake of brevity) and all women (and by extention children) are victims in a male-dominated society. One should not lose sight however, of the specific intent behind use of the term and the long and intense propaganda campaign that went with it. The federal government passed a series of corrupt reforms which would not have been accepted by the general public if they had been viewed objectively. Easily predicting that the victims of reforms (fathers) would complain, it was necessary to define them in such a way that their complaints and arguments would be ignored. As I have said that the article's definition may be slightly too broad - it is because there were a larger number of features associated with the term - including a "deadbeat dad's" high income, that he could easily afford to support his children but simply refused to do so, that he had abandoned the family rather than being forced from it by divorce, that the noncustodial parent is poor such that both she and the children were left "living in a hovel" and dependent on public support .... I have estimated that less than 1 percent (perhaps less than half a percent) of the subject population actually fits the definition. Certainly it is far less than those who simply fall behind in payments. Rogerfgay 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

In relation to the article's reference to a UK agency to explain a term used primarily in the US: I have proposed that the title of article Child_support_in_the_United_States be changed - one option suggested is that the article should be named like articles covering similar material in other countries; by the name of the agency Talk:Child_support_in_the_United_States. Rogerfgay 11:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Removed Shackelford from further reading list. Discussion about "deadbeat dads" included many articles attempting to explain why there were so many, done by researchers who assumed the truth of it. Shackelford's research for example, repeats a myth produced by the US Bureau of Census I believe it was (50% receive no payment, 25% receive partial payment). He then wants to explain from an evolutionary perspective, why men are such irresponsible pigs (expession for brevity) in their handling of family responsibilities in modern life. If this reference were given as an aid in explaining the extent of the problem with anti-father propaganda, it would serve a useful purpose in connection with the article. But it is simply one of many mistakes of that era in which researchers presumed the myth of deadbeat dads to be true, and launched investigations based on that belief. I have added two references for further reading that provide credible factual science and analysis of the politics involved. Rogerfgay 11:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because the article includes the shared parenting issue in discussion, I have added Custody Revolution by Warsak to the further reading list. Bravers' study (leading to his book listed in further reading) was the largest federally funded study on divorced fathers performed in the US (and most likely the world), and its credibility has never been challenged. Warsak performed the longest study of noncustodial parents specific to custody and visitation. Likewise, his study has enormous credibility. Baskerville has done the most to study (and is well published academically and otherwise) from a political scientists perspective. Although the book is new, no one has done more to provide honest and competent analysis (or been published more on the subject) from that perspective than Baskerville. Rogerfgay 12:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The title of this page produces clear, obvious gender bias. As it is possible for a parent of any gender to be forced to pay child support, and it is possible for a parent of any gender to be not in compliance with said child support order, I see no reason for the title page to hold this kind of bias. I am proposing, a renaming to Deadbeat Parent and partial rewrite of the article to help maintain WP:NPOV as much as possible. Does anyone disagree? Celarnor (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since no one seemed to care, I've moved the page to Deadbeat Parents and changed a few links in pages such as Child Support. The majority of the pages that linked here were user talk pages and instances where the gender-specific form is required. Celarnor (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Even before the TOC, there is a bunch of caps-locked nonsense that is really people just people expressing their distaste for the subject of the article, and for American English. It is out of order with the rest of the talk page, and I move to delete it, and look through it, while placing the (possibly) serious discussion topics at the bottom of the page, where it belongs. From when I type t his, I will give one week for objection, discussion, or for someone else to do it, before I do it myself.Landfritter (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

• done Landfritter (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article should be titled "Deadbeat dad." It's a simple fact that the phrase "Deadbeat mom" is not used except on rare occasions to illustrate the sexist (or at least one-sided) nature of the term. Some comments here have brought up how this article is sexist because mothers can be deadbeats too. This is simply wrong. The article should simply reflect the reality and the reality is sexist. Mothers who "abandon" their kids are not considered deadbeats but fathers are. They may be considered bad mothers for not having custody of their children, but there is little real social, much less legal, stigma on them for subsequently failing to financially support the children. Indeed mothers have the option to take birth control or the morning after pill, may abort the child, legally adopt out the child, or completely abandon the child under "Safe Haven" laws with no future financial responsibility whatsoever. Mothers have the full gamut of reproductive rights and options but they are not legally expected to assume the commensurate responsibility for those rights. Only men and fathers are really labeled, or legally pursued, as deadbeats and this article is falsely implying that such is not the case using misleading gender neutral language. Just like in this article, when the term "deadbeat parent" is used it is little more than a PC euphemism for deadbeat dad. More important than the title though is the fact that the entire article maintains this charade of gender neutrality without every pointing out that virtually 100% of those referred to as "deadbeat parents" are dads. This is a clear example of where political correctness goes wrong. The articles lead even says "the gender-specific deadbeat dad and deadbeat mom are commonly used by the child support agency to refer to men and women who have fathered or mothered a child and willingly fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency." I'd be surprised if a any child support agency EVER used the term "deadbeat mom" (rather than parent) much less that it was "common."--Cybermud (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've heard individual people use the terms "Deadbeat mom" and "Deadbeat parents" (in that context, clearly referring to the couple as a unit) all the time. You can google both terms in quotes and you see a lot of commentary. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard anyone say "deadbeat mom," online or in real life, without making reference to "deadbeat dad." Deadbeat mom is a natural play on words for deadbeat dad. Using your google test I get 140,000 hits for "deadbeat dad," and just 7,000 for "deadbeat mom." For every one hit of deadbeat mom there's 20 for dad and almost every one of the ones for mom say something like "mom's can be deadbeats too." The number one hit for deadbeat mom doesn't even have anything to do with child support it is about mothers who alienate children from their fathers.--Cybermud (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice an IP editor is repeatedly trying to bring up the allegations against Joe Walsh (Illinois politician) as an anecdotal example of a "deadbeat parent". I have two issues with this. First, Wikipedia is not a courtroom; if Rep. Walsh is in fact in arrears on child support, that will be borne out by a court of law, and only after such court action is entered into the public record should it be reflected in a Wikipedia article. Second, anecdotal information such as this is best left out of the article, both as a WP:BLP violation and as a matter of a right of privacy for the accused individual. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people I suggest revisions be made to reflect Wikipedia policy and clearly identify it not as a descriptive but as a pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This looks at first blush to be fine under WP:POVNAME; do you have an alternative title to suggest that could be weighed for commonness? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest that the name remain, but be identified as a "commonly used pejorative term or slur." It is not simply non-neutral. It is included by Wikipedia editors in a list of racial and religious epithets, sexist terms and other ugly and intentionally inflamatory terms. To say it is simply non-neutral is to say that the racial epithets also included on that list are merely non-neutral when they are commonly used.

And in fact, that rule specifically references historical events with biased names. Not pejoratives and slurs. So it really doesn't apply at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would also suggest that the phrasing be explicit. It is, by Wikipedia's definitions, a "term of abuse." So that should be made clear from the very start of the article.

If you're going to write the entry on Jewish persons, for instance, and insist the word "Kike" is commonly used enough that it should be Wikipedia's word of choice to describe Jewish persons, you had better be sure you identify that word as a term of abuse in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

As for a suitable replacement, the article on Child Support prefers "Non-Compliant Parent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Suggested first two sentences- "A "deadbeat parent" is a common term of abuse/pejorative/slur (pick one, obviously) for a parent of either sex who either intentionally refuses to make Court ordered child support payments, or in broader sense fails to make Court ordered child support payments for any reason. Because it is not an official term, and is intentionally inflammatory, the definition is imprecise and depends on the derogatory intent of the speaker." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your suggestion seems to discuss the term more than the idea. Personally, I prefer the current wording. Kaldari (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to understand. The term is all that is under discussion. It is slur as defined by Wikipedia, literally hate speech, a term bigots use. The article can discuss the idea, as long as it explains that is doing so only so far as to discuss the slur. Look at the list of pejoratives. This is how all common English language slurs are discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not pursuing consensus. I want a rule enforced. Wikipedia has defined this word as a pejorative. The article must reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Think about it this way. You are effectively asking for "Cunt," the word immediately above this on the list of pejoratives, to not include the fact that it's use is vulgar and sexist.

So please, produce a text that discusses the term in a less blunt way than I did. But recognize that it is a pejorative according to editor consensus. And you will need to get a rather important group of editors to change their minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You appear to be relatively new to editing Wikipedia. The category system does not work the way that many people assume it works. The concept that some "rather important group of editors" is responsible for it is wrong; an article is not added to a category by some particularly important editor editing a category list, but by someone who edits the article adding a tag to the article. This article was put into that category by someone who was editing this article in 2005, and who has had no edits to the article before or since. It has no special magic as an edit, and can be easily removed at any time. If the subsequent editors of this article have allowed that category tag to remain, they are also the ones who have reshaped the opening so that it is no longer describing it as a pejorative term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What you just said is consensus was achieved 9 years ago that the term "deadbeat parent" is pejorative and that those whose nothing wrong with the use of that pejorative, being the editors of this page, have not been able to get it removed from that category in all that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, actually, that's not what I've just said. What I've just said is sitting right here on the page, so if you actually need to refer to what I've just said, then you can. (For that matter, when the tag was placed on this page, "Deadbeat parent" wasn't even the title of the article being tagged.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you believe you have achieved consensus that it is not a pejorative, remove it from the list. But be prepared to explain your actions to other editors. It has been there for 9 years without anyone successfully removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Again, you think there is special magic in applying a rule that allows us to refer to the Boston Massacre as the Boston Massacre, even though that is biased against the British, to a circumstance it was not created for. You are trying to use that rule as justification for an act identical to titling the article on Hispanic people "Spics" and then not explaining that "Spic" is a racial or ethnic slur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And I apologize if it seems I am not assuming good faith here, but the article is strictly speaking Non-Neutral and does not operate outside the narrow exception you claim. This isn't the Boston Massacre (which could be called the Boston Tax Riot if you were British), or the American Civil War (which has sometimes been called The War of Northern Aggression) where the better known, but arguably non-neutral term is preferred as it is the one in overwhelmingly common use. The is a term that is applied to living persons, in a derogatory, and inflammatory way. By favoring it, and refusing to explain the inflammatory nature of it, the editors here are either knowingly or not attempting to make an encyclopedia codify their own bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't think there's any "special magic" involved. I am not confused by WP:POVNAME's use of historical event examples, and do not see anything in the plain text of that guideline that indicates that it only applies to historical events. If there is some Wikipedia policy that is in direct opposition to that, I suggest that you indicate which policy; so far, I am seeing claims but not citations. So far, you have provided sources for nothing; could you be seeking to codify your own bias? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

From NPOVNAME "Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point #2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points #1 and #2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle, as is typing "9-11 hijackers", which redirects to the more aptly named Hijackers in the September 11 attacks." This is a discussion of living persons and the fact that the more pejorative term should redirect to a proper name or less pejorative proper term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Under the rule you yourself cite, Deadbeat parent should be redirected to a more precise and less inflammatory term in the same way Octomom does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because under section 2, it is a colloquillism and not an official term. A more encyclopedic term should be favored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ask yourself if Encyclopedia Britannica would allow a colloquial term such as "Deadbeat parent," with such obvious inflammatory overtones, to not only be the name of the article on Non-custodial parents who do not pay child support, but to not even mention that the term is a colloquialism and such inflammatory overtones are there. It doesn't pass the laugh test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's the thing about slurs. They're always colloquialisms. I'm sorry if you missed that. And you have editors above who consider this term, "nasty" and "inflammatory." Nasty and inflammatory colloquialisms are by definition not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

So I cite NPOVNAME2. Wikipedia often avoids non-neutral names when they are colloquialisms. In this case it should be avoided because it is not merely a colloquialism but a pejorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Like you said, I'm new here. But I'm a really quick study. And by the way, I don't have any kids, and couldn't care any less about non-custodial parents who don't pay child support. My sense of native justice told me the title was sickeningly wrong for an encyclopedia entry, and I went about searching for proof that it was so. So thank you for giving me the ammunition I needed. I think you really did want to believe that this term was no different the Boston Massacre or the Chicago 7. But ask yourself. Are those terms really offensive? Would anyone in Britain really get worked up over me saying Bloody Sunday and insist I call it the Londonderry Riots of 1970? No, but is this term offensive? Editors on this talk page seem to think so. Because it's a colloquial term that's meant to stir up anger and hatred. And you gave me the rule Wikipedia has against that. So I thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The title of this article seems to comfortably pass WP:POVNAME. And even if it didn't, WP:POVNAME concerns only the title and redirects, not the article content. If you want to say that the term is pejorative, why don't you just add the word 'perjorative' to the first sentence? I don't see any need to rewrite the lead or have 20,000 word arguments about whether pejorative terms are encyclopedic. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I added the word 'pejorative' to the lead. If you want to change the title of the article, please follow the requested move procedures. Otherwise, you're just wasting breathe (or bytes). Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Learning the ropes here. Sorry for the protracted discussion.

Terms that are "nasty" or "inflammatory" are not barred from having articles. If you wish this page moved, I suggest you come up with a possible article title, and then show that it is a term in common use. May I also suggest that, as the sections on terminology on this page are utterly lacking in reference, you may wish to try to find reference for them... which might simultaneously improve this problematically unreferenced article, give you ammunition for your claim that the term is a prejudicial colloquialism, and point you toward some appropriate names. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The section on Requested moves suggested the ? if one isn't sure of a new title. I was thinking Non-Compliant Parents in Child Support Proceedings.

And Wikipedia does "often avoid" colloquialisms. Your grounds to oppose a move need to explain why this isn't a colloquialism, or why the use of a colloquialisn shouldn't be avoided in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose move. WP:POVNAME supports use of the pejorative/colloquial term in this case, as it is the most prevalent term and no alternative is obvious. That said, "deadbeat dad" is actually the common name, not "deadbeat parent", but I'm fine with either. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deadbeat dad obviously went bye-bye for being sexist. And I'm sure that debate is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re-directing all searches for "deadbeat parent" to a new, non-offensive term as POVNAME advises solves the prevalence problem. Not at all different from Octomom to the woman's actual name, which no one actually uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wit a little looking Britannica uses "deadbeat dad" in quotes, but prefers Delinquent Parent, no quotes. I'd be comfortable with "Delinquent Parent." It is encyclopedic (I mean, I got it out of the actual encyclopedia), simple, not a pejorative. We can follow in the opening sentence by putting Deadbeat parent in parenthesis and labeling it a common pejorative. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/201326/family-law/22433/Maintenance-and-support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose move. "Delinquent parent" is a far less used term than "deadbeat dad", and seems to be more used for other things (the first page of my google search results includes non-custody-based uses.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let me see if I understand what's being said. We have an operative rule: Wikipedia often avoids colloquialisms in POVNAMES. Deabdeat parent is not just a colloquialism, but a neo-logism adopted by the editors of this article when confronted with the reality that "deadbeat dad" was sexist and inaccurate. So it isn't even a commonly used term. It was invented to make a pretense at political correctness. Neither of you has addressed the actual rule at issue in the slightest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And yes Nat "deadbeat dad" is very commonly used. It is also not used here because consensus determined that its usage to be sexist and inaccurate. If we must compare usages please compare "delinquent parent" to "deadbeat parent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Saying we often do something does not make it a rule. "Deadbeat parent" has reasonable sources going back to the last century, allows us to avoid having separate articles for moms and dads, and a quick google search suggests it is more in use than "delinquent parent". --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Delinquent Parent is Not a POVNAME and has passed peer review at Britannica, meaning it doesn't just have a reasonable source, it has scholarly acceptance. It also does not require separate articles for mothers and fathers as it addresses both and deadbeat parent, deadbeat dad and the rarely used deadbeat mom can all redirect to it. It has none of the problems and all of the solutions, particularly if deadbeat parent is located in parenthesis in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Another proposed name, "Delinquent Parent (Child Support)." It fits established conventions for specificity, includes a term that has passed peer review as appropriately descriptive, is NPOV, and is still concise. I might also suggest an even more radical departure and suggest this article instead of addressing persons, address behavior, "Child Support Evasion" would be a good title, and it returns 13,500 when placed in quotes in google and is the legal term for this behavior. As a corollary, "Child Support Evader" returns 2,370 hits in quotes and is a very precise legal description of the person who intentionally refuse to pay child support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC) I think "Child Support Evader" is the correct choice. Nearly all of the 2,370 sites using it are law firms, news outlets, private detective agencies and the offices of states' Attorney's General. Google it. It's the actual, proper term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC) While some of those sources appear in the search results for "deadbeat parent," many more, the majority probably, are self help websites, blogs and websites specializing in user answered questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Deadbeat parent → Child Support Evader – As extensively discussed above the term deadbeat parent is an POV colloquialism and a slur. It falls afoul of POVNAME2 and should be avoided as per Wikipedia policy. Child Support Evader is the correct legal term (deriving from the legal construct of Tax Evasion- Tax Evader), is extraordinarily specific, is well known and professionally accepted and is used by competent and professional authorities in a precise and non colloquial manner. It is the only correct and acceptable term other than Britannica's construct of Delinquent Parent. 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If your goal is to avoid being insulting, this is an odd path to take. A deadbeat, under the relevant Merriam-Webster definition, is merely "one who persistently fails to pay personal debts or expenses". An evader actually avoids something, takes active steps; it depicts not someone who cannot pay a debt, but someone who chooses not to. It also does not appear to be a very common term; while Google will at first tell you that it has a couple thousand hits (still not very much), going to page through them, I quickly run into "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 193 already displayed." (which in my experience generally means multiple paths to the same article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What I'm about to say is by no means a personal attack. I don't believe you personally engage in the behavior I am about to discuss.

Deadbeat itself is a slur. It's why it's not used in the article on Bankruptcy, even though it is synonymous with someone who is bankrupt. It is not benign.

Moreover, other than being scurrilous in its own right, "deadbeat dad" and the construct "deadbeat parent" are right up there with "welfare queen" as code words for racial, ethnic and class based bigotry. You will notice that my tone has been strident to the point of indignation. This is why. The term is very often used to make certain underhanded and vile racist and classist allegations without actively stating the inherent racism and classism.

All I want is to find an intellectually honest way to achieve consensus and move on. I found a precise legal term that may be more pointed, but is certainly less inflammatory, more precise, and less racially fraught. I am making every effort to come up with a solution to an ugly problem in the best faith I can muster.

I ask that you forgive my stridency, but I have no tolerance for bigotry. Certainly not when it is codified in an encyclopedia.

I ask that you show some good faith, and instead of defending what I consider indefensible, give me some suggestion for what possibilities you would entertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia doesn't title the article on "Tax Evasion," "Tax Cheats." It doesn't title the article on Pedophilia, "Kiddy Fiddlers." Nor does it title the article on Felons, "Convicts." Why? Because the terms are colloquial pejoratives. We are talking about illegal behavior, which is punishable by law. The persons who engage in that conduct are at least as entitled to not have a pejorative used to define them as Tax Evaders, Child Molesters and Felons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And to explain what I mean about the term having racist connotations Google returns 628,000 returns for Deadbeat Dad in quotes. if you put racist after it, it returns 62,200. Fully 10%. Even if some of those are coincidental, it's one large, statistically significant coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The many repeats on Child Support Evader arise from the fact that is an official term used in the State of Texas. Most are BOLOs the Attorney General of the State of Texas issued for known evaders. Not repeats of the same document, but documents that all fit the same template for different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You once commented on how badly sourced this article was: here's why. For most folks, "deadbeat parent" is just an image they have of young man with more melatonin in his skin than they normally like to see, who has children they think he's either too lazy, or too irresponsible to feed. That about sums up this ugly term for a lot of people. So all of the sourcing in the world can't fix an article with this name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Much of the reaction you are giving is simply that, your reaction; I am not seeing any sign that your interpretation of the term is the common one. Your being vehement about it doesn't make the argument stronger. As it is a term used in government discussion, in newspaper coverage of the laws, and so forth, I question whether it still qualifies as "colloquial".

So "Child Support Evader" is largely a Texas-specific term? The term Deadbeat Parent is used in other jurisdictions, such as New York's Top Ten Deadbeat Parent List.

If you really want to move this article, you might get more traction with a title that described the crime or situation, rather than the individual. It's folly to believe that there can be a fair person-based title that doesn't carry negative connotations, as failing to pay child support is a bad situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suggested that yesterday. Child Support Evasion. Failure to Pay Child Support. Pick one, or suggest another. Because as I said in my reaction, no other illegal conduct entitles editors to use a pejorative colloquialism to define the offender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I'm not sure if child support evader is specific to Texas but California does not have any specific name at all for the person, merely lines in their penal code addressing the conduct. 64 million people between Texas and California, only 19 million in New York. We could actually try to solve this mathematically. Choose California's model if it predominates by percentage of the populace living under that system, and define by conduct, Texas if more people live in states that use evader or New York if most states use deadbeat parent. Though to tell you the truth, deadbeat parent is way behind right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Florida defines by conduct, no name. 19.5 million. That puts conduct but no name at 58.5 million or so. Child support evader at 26 million and change, and deadbeat parent at 19.6 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's a third of the country totaled. If we keep going, how realistic do you think the New York model gets to 103 million before the California model? I think the idea that deadbeat parent is common place is unsubstantiated hot air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0061/Sections/0061.30.html http://www.courts.ca.gov/1198.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Colorado defines by statute and doesn't name. Arkansas follows Texas. https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Frag?file=/cm:home.jsp http://www.arkansas.gov/dfa/child_support/ocse_evaders_details.php?id=3

You said other jurisdictions using New York's model. Which ones? Because I can do this all night, but it looks like you cherry picked a populace state and did no more research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And that's 5.2 million more to the California model, and 3 million more to Texas' model. What's that, 63.7 million and 29 million to 19.7. And lest you choose a federal accounting, it's also 5-1 with 4 of the top 5 counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Not to put to fine a point on this Nat, but for someone who talks like he's very certain of himself on this issue, all you have is bad reading of POVNAME, one cherry picked jurisdiction (and wait until I dig into the legislative history and prove they chose it because it was inflammatory) and 45,000 Google hits for "deadbeat parent." Your argument is so thing it would be public indecency if you wore it outside your own home. Do some research and bring at least some relevant data. Because what you have to oppose is worse than nothing. It's fairly clear one New York name and shame list and 45,000 websites isn't going to equal 5 US states totaling a population over 100 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll give a running start, I found one County in Illinois, that uses deadbeat parent. Shame it was Lake County with around 640,000 and not Cook County. The remaining 12.2 million in Illinois use California's model. 75.9 million to 29 million to 20.3 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

So to summarize, what we seem to have is a situation where deadbeat parent is demonstrably the least common term in use by governments, most who merely codify the conduct in statute, it is used by a small handful of jurisdictions for it's shock value alone, because it is a pejorative colloquialism. It is highly uncommon on the internet with only 45,000 citations (which is honestly not any different than 4,500- numbers this small don't matter) mainly from answers.com and the like in a Google search. I can't even find a single reference to it in any New York State Statute, so it was adopted at the agency level at best, and possibly only in the document you present, meaning not even New York actually uses it for any significant purpose. And by the way, governments use colloquialisms all the time "Click it or ticket" as do news agencies "Brangelina." Basically, you've got nothing Nat. Literally zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And the fact of the matter is, you've strung out for days what should have been simple. You've basically been holding on in your head and saying something has to overcome "deadbeat dad" because that is a commonly used recognizable phrase. Well, it doesn't. That isn't the name of this article any more for several very good reasons. You've got no more wiggle room. The title is not a Commonly Used Recognizable Name at all. 45,000 citations is not sufficient and never was. It is also a POV Colloquialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, I know Wikipedia says names should be stable, but this one just doesn't deserve it. It falls afoul of COMMONNAME. Rant and rave all you want, but in most court's if you said this out loud, even in New York, even in Lake County, Illinois, the judge would threaten you with contempt charges as it's not a legal term, but an insult. One that's thrown around to shame people into compliance. Anywhere else you went, they'd know you were just trying to say "deadbeat dad" with proving yourself sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suggest simply changing this to Failure to Pay Child Support, which is how what we're is generally defined by statute, known by millions of lawyers and judges and concise and clear and produces 1.49 million returns when placed in quotes on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And that fools hope you might have that that phrase doesn't overcome "deadbeat dad," well that term itself isn't half as recognizable at 628,000 hits. The only COMMONNAME that sums up what we're talking about is the self-explanatory one they always use in the Courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And by the way, if this whole belabored process was not simply you trying to defend something you really believed in, but to get me to behave in a lawyerly way, I'm actually sickened to have met you. At least assuming you actually believed in what you were saying made you a person to me. One I didn't like, but a person worthy of respect. If this was just an exercise in legalism; basically pedantically insisting I argue better, and do more research, while you're own argumentation was shoddy, and your own research nil, I don't even really care if my last move goes through. Tell me your dad bailed on you, and you can't stand to lose this term. Because if it's just endless legalism, with no formal skill, or actual knowledge of the subject that goes into being an editor here, then Wikipedia has nothing to offer the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is a page for discussing the edits of the article. If you wish to discuss your assumptions about me or your reactions to those assumptions, well, I cannot think of the appropriate place, but my account talk page would certainly be more appropriate. You will find it linked in the signature of this message. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was going to close the move in the previous section but decided not to as the argument is parochial and seems to be only about usage in the USA.

See for example

• UK: Child Support Agency - Gov.uk -- "The Child Maintenance Service"
• IE: Child Maintenance
• Aus: Child support and child maintenance
• NZ: child support

The UK and IE and AUS use very similar language, the NZ article uses different terms.

The article name (and content) should reflect usage in all English speaking countries and "Deadbeat parent" is American slang -- A global search on the term in the UK domain returns "dead beat parent" site:uk 348 (estimated) 40 actual results for good bad and indifferent sources -- so it should be changed to something more appropriate which is a either a neurally descriptive title or one which is more universally used.

There is a UN "Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance", which would allow for a neutrally worded title such as "Recovery of child maintenance payments". and the convention would be a good place to start such an article. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would agree, actually. My overall intent is finding an appropriately encyclopedic entry- and the international term, if it is the COMMONNAME is demonstrably better than a US specific term. Which of your terms dominates in the Anglophone world? And might we also look at South Africa, Nigeria and India for similar terms? If we want a dominate Anglophone term, we should look to all majority Anglophone countries with significant countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I like the UN angle. Perhaps we can achieve consensus using a multinational term, if their is not one that governs international law or is used in a majority of Anglophone jurisdictions world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.175.8 (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

At this point, this article is heavily specifically about the US. As such, theproblem may be not that the title isn't universal enough, but that it isn't specific enough. perhaps this should be the article on deadbeat parentage in the USA or US child support arrears or some other title that makes it specific, rather than needing to change the article to match a new title and a title to match some expected article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Google returns 19,900,000 hits for the the search: racialized deadbeat dad. The term is racist, and that needs to be noted in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.149.130 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The top 10 search results in Google are a case in point. 8 of the top 10 of the 692 when- "deadbeat dad" (when it is phrased thusly) racialized- are Googlebooks results referring to the racial bias of either the term, or those who use it, not including this article. 8 of the top 9 and those 8 are all book entries. Can we take a look at if it's simply racialized or just flat racist? Because if it is, this article needs to state that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.78.149.130 (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

In all the times I've ever heard the term, not once did I ever think the term had anything to do with race. In fact, I've probably heard it used more often to refer to whites than blacks. I have certainly never used the term in any racial way. 65.68.190.60 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does your mileage vary? That isn't proof. I ran the Google search suggested. It's basically true. The term is racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unless you have a reliable source stating that the term is racialized, it's your opinion. ... discospinster _talk 03:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first link sas it's racialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Credible source already included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a source. Can you put the link in the article? ... discospinster _talk 04:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

1st link already included http://flowtv.org/2010/09/de-racializing-deadbeat-dads/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You've breached goodfaith twice now. The link is in the article. Please stop the edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The FlowTV article currently being used does not say that the term is racist, or even that the term is racialized, but that the view of the phenomenon is racialized - that we are more likely to perceive members of the black community as failing to pay due child support, rather than that we view such nonpayment as being "deadbeat" when it's a black guy and something different when it's a white guy. What you're getting as a result for a Google search is apt to be different from what other people get for the same search (Google customizes), but what I see as the top 10 for this search are

1. This article
2. This talk page
3. The FlowTV article
4. an article from the Boston College Hournal of Law and Social Justice by Ann Cammett, which is the closest to a good source on this, but even that doesn't call the term "racist" as our article currently does. (Also, its comments on the perception of Deadbeat Dads seems to be referenced primarily to another article by the same author; it would be more clearly supportive if it pointed to a wider base of academic consensus.)
5. Google Books results for Sexual Citizens referring to the deadbeat dad as a racialized image.
6. An abstract for the Boston College Journal article
7. [http://books.google.com/books?id=Bp-WlqUWVRYC&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=racialized+%22deadbeat+dad%22&source=bl&ots=RWyCAsmNHe&sig=r-KxR8YonwlWMa0pRmSfdmajxQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QgS8U-XoBpHooATfkYCoBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=racialized%20%22deadbeat%20dad%22&f=false a Google Books entry for a book which has "racialized" and "Deadbeat dad" on the same page, but not in reference to one another.
8. a forum article discussing this Wikipedia article
9. another Google book result where "deadbeat dad" and "racialized" are on the same page but not clearly referring to each other.

The next ten include pages that clip or quote the Wikipedia article, other academic sources that refer to the term as "racialized" rather than "racist", academic sources that uses both terms on the same page (or same presentation) but not related to each other, a Salon article discussing Cammett's article as Cammett's views rather than simply as the truth, a source from Cammett's university promoting that Salon referred to her work, a page about Jews that doesn't even have the term "deadbeat" on it (the word was in a side ad for another article when Google indexed the page), and another page linking to the FlowTV article, and an article using "racialized" to discuss articles about deadbeat dad stereotypes, rather than the stereotype itself. As such, while we have some meat to discuss it being a racialized term, even that is weaker than the "look at all the Google results"-type argument suggests, and we don't have sourcing to call it a "racist term" as the article currently does (although I understand that the difference between racialized and racist may be considered subtle at best.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Had to switch off a wireless modem, but I was the editor who made the changes you spoke about- this new IP is clearly not a new user. Want to make that clear.

Racialize means to describe in racial language. Period. Using a pejorative when you speak in racialized language is by its very definition racist. If you don't get that I kind of think there's no hope for you.

And find better links. Ones that say that the term isn't racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wish, looking back on the messy history of this article since race came up, that one editor had been diiigent or intellectually honest. I mean, c'mon guys. You can't beat a master's thesis listed as article number one because you're so uneducated on the subject and lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Make just one informed post. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.232.6 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No argument was made to make a change under the idea that this racist term should not be marked. I changed it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.61.95 (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Facts: An October 7 2014 Google search for "racialized deadbeat dad" returned "About 10,700 results (0.56 seconds)"; in the same Google search, the key term "deadbeat dad" returned "About 666,000 results (0.26 seconds)"; The Government website of the Department of Health and Human Services uses the term "Most Wanted Deadbeat" (accessed 7 October 2014) to wit: 3/4 were white or Caucasian men.

Remedy: It is suggested that instead of "Racialized pejorative" a more accurate representation would be "colloquial pejorative" of one in default of court ordered child support payments. The term is used widely in West Virginia, who has a 93.9% white population (2010) and it is assumed that race is not an issue to the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Gasper (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Racial component of the article has been removed. stop making everything about race please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.213.162 (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've seen no justification for the article to exist. What does it provide in terms of language? An explication of a oft used racial slur, sometimes used as a poor white trash-ism. This is an "urban dictionary" term not an encyclopedic term. Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.76.16 (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It should be noted that failure to allow or encourage visitation when ordered by the court should be considered deadbeat as well. When it comes to enforcement of visitation the office of the AG in Texas any way is " we are not responsible for that, hire an attorney". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortmech (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deadbeat parent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509175601/http://www.co.dodge.wi.us:80/index.aspx?page=124 to http://www.co.dodge.wi.us/index.aspx?page=124

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deadbeat parent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150604044116/http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_2003_collectability_study.pdf to http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/DCSS_2003_collectability_study.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111235506/http://www.usdoj.gov:80/criminal/ceos/child_support.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/child_support.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The "See Also" section contains links that are relevant to the topic (child custody, child support, etc). However, the last link is "Kody Brown" and the link leads to an article about the television series "Sister Wives". Kody Brown is apparently the patriarch on that show. I looked through the Sister Wives article and I'm struggling to see how it's relevant to the topic of "deadbeat parents". There's nothing in the Sister Wives article that specifically mentions child custody or deadbeat parents. Is the inclusion of the link a mistake? Was there previously an article that contained information relevant to this topic? Keylimepie2006 (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it as a WP:BLP concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply