Q. Many states impose strict and sometimes demeaning sanctions on fathers to compel payment of child support. What does Jewish tradition say about this?
A. The prevalent view in the United States is that the main obligation for child support falls on the biological father, and not on the mother or on the community. Often various sanctions apply, for example, the ability to obtain a driver's license, passport etc.
Jewish law as described in the Talmud and authoritative codes doesn't impose the same kind of sanctions, but it definitely shares the view that the father has a legal and ethical obligation to support his minor children, and that it is shameful for him to shirk this obligation.
Technically, Jewish law distinguishes two levels of child support obligation. There is an inherent obligation on the father to provide for his children until age 6; and from then on there is a rabbinical obligation which is viewd as an extension of the general obligation to give charity. But practically speaking there is little difference between the two.
The following Talmudic passage distinguishes various levels of enforcement of this obligation:
When they came before Rav Yehuda [regarding a man who failed to support his children], he said to them: The ostrich gave birth and imposed [its offspring's] support on the public! When they came before Rav Chisda [with such a case], he said to them: Turn over a mortar [to make a stand, like a soapbox], stand on it and announce: "Even a raven cares for its offspring, yet this man doesn't care for his children!" . . . When they came before Rava, he said: "Is this person satisfied that his children should be supported by charity?"
And all this [that the father is reprimanded and shamed, but not actually assessed] applies only if he lacks means, but if has the means we compel him to pay. (1)
The references to the ostrich and the raven are explained by the commentators as follows: These species of birds aren't kind to their offspring, but at the very least they provide them with food; so this man is behaving worse than an animal.
The motivation behind this law is evidently the same as that in secular law: both to insure that the father personally participates in providing for the children, and to ensure that the children don't become a burden on community funds. "Charity begins at home" and a person's first obligation is to his wife and his young children.
It is impossible for me to comment in detail on the various provisions of the child support laws in the US. There are certainly differences; for example, in Jewish law a father with no means is not formally compelled to pay child support, but under secular law he may be. But we clearly see that Jewish law perceives a cardinal ethical obligation for a father to support his children even if his means are limited. After all, the Talmud concludes that if he has means they are subject to collection, and presumably his wages would be subject to garnishment. It is specifically the father who currently has no means to support his children who is shamed, in order to persuade him to do whatever is necessary in order to provide for them.
This obligation definitely does not preclude a voluntary arrangement, one increasingly common in our society, whereby the mother is the breadwinner. In that case the father is indeed providing for his children through this voluntary agreement. But the primary obligation for the support of the children falls on the father, and not on the mother or the public purse.
SOURCES: (1) Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 49:1-2.
(8) L.S., December 1, 2010 9:28 PM
#4 not correct
Comment #4 is incorrect. Go to any orthodox event--how many single mothers do you see as opposed to single fathers? It is cruel to take an infant away from its mother at 2 years old! Unless the mother is totally unfit, children are in the primary custody of the mother, who has been pregnant, given birth, nursed, etc.
(7) SusanE, March 28, 2010 4:04 PM
The Kids Always Suffer.
I know men who have quit working after a divorce and child support has been ordered. - In PA a man making $36,000 a year with a stay at home wife and 2 kids could pay $1003. a month in support if he chooses to leave the marriage. He has legal fees and mostly he has a mortgage to keep his home and insurances also. He can't afford to live independently. So, he drops out. He quits working and moves in with a girlfriend for a few years and lives off the grid till the kids are grown. -------- I know one man who remarried and his new wifes' wages were included and his child support was substancially raised. I know a college professor who was divorced and he took a leave and dropped out of sight, and resurfaced with a women and a cash only job for 10 years. He will probably die without ever having respect from his children.- I've seen both sides of the support issue. No one but the judge considers the kids. When there is a bitter divorce and the children are young, it's generally one of the partners is having an affair. In that case child support is called Pay to Play. And ......... you can't afford it. To the men out there - if you don't want to pay child support, stay in the marriage. You have legal financial and moral obligations till your children are of age.
(6) Steve, March 25, 2010 2:48 PM
Parent alienaton is a gentile derivative
I agree 100% that the child support guidelines are geared to not only financially rape the noncustodial parent ( mostly the fathers) but encourage parent alienation. I think this dimishment of the noncustodial parent stems from non-Judaic values that have influenced the legal system.. Have a child with a gentile and when things go to child custody issues, see how bizarre and anti-semitic the gentile parent becomes. Also, see how the court's insincerity trivializes Judaic issues that pertain to the child. It's still a 2000 year history of hate displayed as a microcosm in family court.
(5) Anonymous, March 18, 2010 11:47 PM
Family law is often court-approved male abuse by which men are raped by the system. I am speaking as a woman. When I got divorced, my ex and I amicably figured out payments because even I could see that what he would've been required to pay by law was unreasonable, so I accepted less. I've never regretted it. The problem isn't that dads don't want to support their children. The problem is that the law often places financial burdens on men that leave them with an inability to support their own basic needs for food and shelter. A man could lose his job, but they'll still go after him for payment. It's unconscionable how our society discriminates against men in the family law courts, diminishing their "relationship" with their children to visitations. I also agree with Commenter #2. I feel for the men who are suffering both financially and emotionally and hope the laws will become more balanced over time.
(4) Anonymous, March 18, 2010 4:27 PM
This article may hurt children and should be removed
I am shocled the ethicist does ask: Does it make the children happy when their father's pictire is posted on the internet or he is put in jail for not paying child supprt? How emotionally painful and humilaiting is it for children to visit theiir fathers in jail because he wasn't able to pay support? Did the ethicist comment on the excruciating pain felt by children who lost their fathers becuase the fathers were hounded for money that they did not have and moved away? This artilcle promotes the idea that a father's value in a family is bringing in money -- and if he doesn't, punish him. I never met anyone whose father has passed away say: I wish my father was alive so he could give me money. What I hear them say is: I wish my father was alive so I could talk to him. It's also contrary to Jewish law. According to Maimonides, when there is a divorce, custody of children goes to the father unless the child is nursing inwhich case the child stays with the moher until he or she is no longer nursing. Please remove this article before more children are hurt.
(3) Anonymous, March 16, 2010 9:27 PM
Father in Jail no support
What happens when the father is in jail, for a crime he committed? There is no child support. The mother is the soul supporter of the 2 children. Yet, he and his family keep taking the Mother to court, hiring expensive lawyers, so that the Mother must take the kids to jail to visit their nonsupportive Father, once every month. What does Jewish law say about that? His family was asked to give their Mysor money to help support the children. But they refused. They claim they have no money, yet they find it to pay high cost lawyers. It's said that his children have to depend on the community for support and social agencies. P.S. His father is a Rabbi. Now don't you wonder why kids go off the derch? With a grandfather and a father like this, you would be surprised if they remain frum?
(2) Jdubow, March 16, 2010 5:53 PM
The real problem is the reverse
At present billions of dollars are spent by various offices of recovery services in the states. Non payment of child support still exists, but where the father has a job and lives in the US it is difficult to avoid the recovery services cowboys. They even go after prison payments, unemployment, and any baseline income a father might have. The real problem, which the mainstream literature studiously avoids is the interference and destruction of fatherhood by mothers who use the child as a weapon. Men's groups all over the country lobby for equal parental rights, but get little or no support. For every deadbeat dad there are a hundred minefield Mom's whose violations of the spirit of joint custody get no funding by legal authorities, no recognition by psychologists or psychiatrists and no sympathy from ethicist's Jewish or otherwise. Children suffer, particularly male children, but they don't vote, pay therapist bills, or have a super powerful lobby like NOW. The country is paying a price in the self image and performance of its male children and their attitude towards marriage. Marriage isn't the biblical instance of marriage so there is no point using religion to analyze it. It is family law, a dog's breakfast of politicized double talk. If present trends continue contract marriages will outnumber family law indentured servitude contracts sometime in the second half of this century. It will be good riddance. This article should have emphasized that child support isn't a twenty five year welfare program for wives with nothing coming back to the husband. Once every two weeks isn't fatherhood. In fact, the refereed literature has shown that over 90% of men consider family law abusive and one sided. You can barely get that level of agreement on what day of the week it is. Where is the ethicist in all this?
(1) Anonymous, March 15, 2010 5:15 PM
Who's supporting the family?
Child support is known when a couple divorces, and the man pays for helping to support the children, while he lives elsewhere. There is another way of looking at this, and that is a man pays child support, when he is not divorced. The husbands role and responsiblity is to support his wife and children. The husband is to be the provider to his family. The role of the wife is to raise the children and taking care of the needs of her family. A lot more than that also. Unemployment rates are very high in the U.S. With the two working spouses, if one loses a job, the other still has one. It's going back to the one provider to a household, not by decision of one spouse, in some cases, the wife is the sole provider in the house because of the economy crisis. There is not enough jobs for the two working spouses in society. So now in the 21st century women are finding themselves as the sole provider of the household, and they are married, not divorced. A role reversal when the man who was the sole provider of the household and the woman stayed at home taking care of her family.