Deadbeat dads seem to take precedence over "deadbeat moms''. Although there are some such moms, there are far fewer than there are deadbeat dads.

Dealing with deadbeat dads is a difficult problem which often arises from questions of paternity or as a result of a divorce. In almost every instance there are two distinct sides to the question and, more often than not, the parents are in conflict. That conflict gets in the way of child support payments and discussions of the real purpose of such payments. The anger of parents toward one another is too often reflected in both the amount and the frequency of such payments.

Child support payments are for the support of the children of a relationship, be it a long-term marriage or a casual encounter. If paternity is in dispute, and sometimes it is, it is easily established because DNA testing is conclusive these days.

Paternity agreed or established, the sole consideration should be the well-being of the children. Child support should not be a question of the rights of the mother and the rights of the father. It is a question of the rights of the children and when parents are at war, the rights of the children have to be protected by law.

Clearly children need to be housed, clothed and fed and they need to be educated. Parents have that responsibility and fathers are parents. The fact children are more often than not in the care of their mothers is not a reason for fathers to add all of the financial responsibility to the mothers' caring responsibilities.

Failure to pay child support can amount to contempt of court but putting people in jail because they do not pay child support is no answer. In jail they cannot earn to pay the support.

A few years ago Government made a good deal of noise about garnisheeing wages as a means of ensuring child support. Yet the vexed problem is still with us.

There are huge amounts of money unpaid and a number of women and children are in desperate situations.

Neither Government nor the Opposition seems ready to support the suggestion that fathers who do not pay should be put on the stop list to prevent pleasure travel.

We would stop them from leaving the Island if there were writs against them for criminal activity. We would probably also stop them fleeing the Country if they were being sued or had orders against them for money owed to merchants.

Why shouldn't we stop them if they fail to support their children? Are Bermuda's children less important than criminal activity or less important than failure to pay for a car. We think not.

There is a major moral and legal responsibility to look after children. Surely that responsibility comes before a vacation. Bermuda's children should take precedence over a visit to New York.