Arpaio Valentine: Deadbeat parents busted

[Phoenix-Risen]

Source: Azcentral.com

Sheriff's has Valentine's deadbeat parent roundup
by Sherry Anne Rubiano - Feb. 14, 2009 03:00 PM
The Arizona Republic
Dozens of people received a Valentine's Day surprise: A sheriff's deputy on their doorstep with a warrant for their arrest.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office arrested 72 people on warrants Saturday as part of a deadbeat-parent roundup called "Operation Tough Love."

Out of that total, only 17 were deadbeat parents. The others were arrested for drug charges and other charges, said Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Despite the other charges, Arpaio said their main goal was to find deadbeat mothers and fathers. They targeted parents who have warrants out for their arrests for refusing a court order to pay child support.



Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/02/14/20090214deadbeats-ON.html

---

He does this on Father's and Mother's day also. Local news claims that he has collected $2.5 million in the last few years.

[Suji to Seoul]

1. Attention seeking media whore. Go fuck yourself, Sheriff Joe.

Embarrassment to humanity and Arizona.

What the hell is wrong with people in the East Valley that they re-electing this monster!?!

[davidinalameda]

2. if he's getting these dead-beats to pay what is owed their kids

then I'm willing to give him some room to work

[kalavaughn]

3. sheriff joke

Nah, this isn't about actually getting deadbeat parents to do what's right. Only 17 of 72 arrested turned out to be deadbeat parents. This is about publicity, via rounding up undocumented workers, and offering red meat to the base that continues to support him. If his motive, as he stated in the article were truly about doing what's right for the children, he wouldn't be so hot to split families, separating children from their soon to be deported undocumented parents.

[davidinalameda]

12. that's 17 more kids who might get the money they're owed

and spare me the tears about the "undocumented" workers as well

they're here illegally; they know that if they're caught and deported, there's the chance that their families will be separated

that's called choice in my book

that's more of a choice than those 17 kids whose dead-beat parents were busted had

[Lost in CT]

17. Thats the fault of the undocumented worker not the Sheriff. nt

[happyslug]

5. How is he doing that? Under Federal Law wage attachment is REQUIRED

Thus if you fall behind you are either unemployed or self-employed. The former, I suspect, are the majority of those arrested, they owe money, more often then not to the what ever Arizona calls its Department of Welfare. Remember most parents who have the children do NOT have the income to survive UNLESS they go on Welfare, and any support ordered must first be paid to the State Department of Welfare before any goes to the Parent with the Child. Furthermore some parents owe this money from the distant past, often the child is over age 30 today, but Welfare still wants to money. I have seen some people loss most of their Social Security Check, for child support ordered by a state they never lived in and thus never had a say in how much support should have been ordered (And I know of one person who has been on Social Security since the early 1970, and his child are in their 30s but has had his Social Security Check attached to pay a support arrears dating from the 1970s). These tend to be the people "arrested" by someone like this Sheriff, they have NOT avoided paying, they just do NOT have the money to fight this Order (Often requires a move out of the state they have been living in for decades to a state they have had no contact with).

As to the Self-employed, I have less sympathy, unlike people who are working or on Social Security (But NOT SSI) it is hard to attach the Income of such Self-employed person, but these tend to be easy to find people, people hire them for various services. Since they provide services (Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants etc) it is easy to find them and threaten to jail them for non-payment. At that point they tend to pay up (and more often pay to avoid going in front of a Judge). Thus it is rare to have a Self-employed person being jailed (It has happened but it is rare compared to those people who are unemployed).

Given that wage attachment kick in (and can be as high as 60% of your Income) most people who are employed rarely fall behind UNLESS they lose their job. The same with the Self-Employed, they pay unless their flow of Income disappears (Rare, but it does happen). Most people who fall behind in Child Support, first get reviewed by the local Domestic Relations Office DRO), if they can NOT convinced the local DRO, it then goes to a Judge who threaten to jail them or jails them depending on how far behind the non paying person is. The Sheriff then escort then to Jail. The Sheriff rarely goes out to find such people for most such people know they have to make payments and know it is better to go in front of DRO and then a Judge then to be arrested for NOT going in front of the Judge. It is rare for the Sheriff to arrest someone who can pay for non payment of support (It is common for the Sheriff to arrest the non-paying parent when the Judge sentence that parent to jail, but rare for the Sheriff to go out and arrest such parents in their home).

My point is simple, I doubt any of these arrest leads to any child support payments. If they are working wage attachment would have been ordered a long time ago. If they are self-employed NOT working is worse then paying the support (In most cases, there are exceptions) but the vast majority of the people who fall behind in support payments do so do to a lack of Income.

Remember, under existing federal law (Changed in the mid 1990s as part of the GOO Welfare to Work Program), even Social Security can be attached for Child Support. That attachment is possible even if what is taken drops the recipient below the "Standard of Need" which is the same as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payout (And SSI can NOT be attached). Thus you can have a person who is on Social Security have his or her Social Security attached so that he or she gets less then the "Standard of Need" even through if that person was on SSI, none of it could be touched for Child Support, it is one of the differences between Social Security and SSI).

No, I fear this is just Grand Standing, arresting a bunch of poor people who have out standing arrest warrants for non payment of Support do to a job loss (Or other lack of Income) and have NOT filed for a reduction in child support do to the loss of job (Or other lack of Income). Remember if someone losses his or her job, child support obligation continues until that person files for a reduction do to the loss of income AND it is granted by DRO or a Judge. A person can lose his job, go on unemployment (Which can be attached for Child Support, up to 60%) AND if that unemployment check is no where near his or her previous Income (And some states have cap on Unemployment to keep payments down) that parent can incur a huge arrears before he or she gets in front of a Judge.

This is Grandstanding NOT law enforcement.

[Baby Snooks]

8. A good reason not to get married...

Or a good reason to stay married. The reality is most men, and some women, cannot afford the single life with kids. Of course being single with children of late has proved disastrous as well. Courts now rule that if you unzipped your pants so to speak, or spread your legs, it doesn't matter if you were married. The kid is yours. So pay up.

The sexual revolution brought us many things. Child support in particular.

As for the sheriff, well, anything for some publicity. Although I thought his "pink prisons" were sort of cute.

As for deadbeat dads, and deadbeat moms, well, learn to keep your pants zipped and your legs crossed.

[Brgotn]

9. Not Grandstanding

There are a large amount of people work start working under the table when they get to the point of having their wages garnished. You have to be totally unwilling to support your children to get to the point where a warrant is issued.

[Chan790]

10. +1

A good friend from college is a prosecutor in a very-large East Coast city in the Family Law division (prosecuting deadbeat parents for non-payment of child support.) and says that the vast majority of the cases across his desk are people who are either working under the table to avoid their support order (enough of these are drug-dealers that there is a joint task-force with narcotics dedicated just to them as child support arrears work just as well to take them off the street...not unlike Al Capone's conviction for tax fraud.) or people who make agreements with their boss to work for less money if their employer will assist them in subverting their support order. We're not talking about hard-luck victims here; generally to be prosecuted you've got to have a fairly-substantial arrears, an unwillingness to work with the system and active intent to avoid paying. It's not even in his interest to prosecute: he gets assessed in his yearly review on how much caseload he can clear and how much money he can take off the backlog, not how many people he sends to jail (like any prosecutor he cares about his win% once he has to enter a court room and so does the DA. Neither of them is in the business of spending taxpayer money to lose).

The vast majority of his cases are not Soc. Sec. cases or unemployed people and he's encouraged to settle those when they occur to get them off the books. He admits though that he has zero qualms about going after property and accounts or filing liens if you're sitting on your wealth in those cases. Non-employment is not and should not be a defense for not paying child support when you own a $350K house with no mortgage or have $60,000 in your savings account. On the other hand, it's not good for anybody when you're garnishing Soc. Sec. or disability checks.

[happyslug]

15. It might be my case load, most of MY clients who have warrants are unemployed

Whenever I go to the Judge who hears cases why someone should NOT go to jail for non payment of support, the vast majority are unrepresented and tell the Judge they have no Income. These are Civil Contempts NOT criminal Contempts, with DRO requesting that the payee be held in Contempt NOT the local DA. These payees, just do NOT have jobs. The Judge jails one or two who have NOT made sufficient effort to get a job, and demands from the rest some evidence that they are looking for work.

Social Security cases tend to stop at the administrative level of DRO, but unemployment cases generally go to the local judge in a Civil Contempt action. It is such actions that you see the unemployed and as long as they are making reasonable efforts to find a job the Judge lets them go.

It sounds like your source is dealing with CRIMINAL CONTEMPTS, a level long after Civil Contempts are filed. Both are served by the Sheriff and subject you to jail, but Civil Contempts only till you come up with the money or the Judge believe the Civil Contempt is NOT getting the money. Criminal Contempts implies jail time over and above the time needed to get someone to come up with the money. That is a more serious offense, which is NOT the issue I was addressing. It is rare for the DA to appear at the DRO Civil Contempt hearing, sounds like your source is going after a higher income group then I generally deal with. They have money, the people I was discussing do not and I suspect this Sheriff went after Civil Contempt violates then anyone subject to an Criminal Contempt action.

[davidinalameda]

13. you obviously know nothing about the law

just because you have a judgment in place, you have to execute it

and a person can get around most judgment orders if they can prove that garnishing their wages would prove too much of a burder

[happyslug]

14. What are you talking about?? Avoiding Garnishment?

First the Federal Law on Garnishment for attachment of support overrules every other rule on attachment, even the Federal Attachment limit of 25% of total wages AND that you must be left, on a weekly basis, 30 times the minimum wage. Furthermore except for SSI (Supplemental Security Income, NOT Social Security Disability, which is a different program AND subject to attachment) even federal income (Salaries, wages, Social Security, Military Pay) also can be attached for Child Support under the Welfare to Work changes.

This overrules even State laws on Attachment, In my home state of Pennsylvania Wage attachment has been banned since the late 1800s, but even in Pennsylvania, Wage attachment is required, under Federal Law, when it comes to Child Support.

In the mid 1990s as part of "Welfare Reform" every state had to rewrite its Attachment policies to reflect the change in Federal law, if that state wanted to continue to received Federal Funds for Welfare (They all did). Most states just adopted a policy of direct wage attachment following some sort of schedule, it is up to the person who wages were being attached to show the attachment was a hardship. The problem with the term "Hardship" was the Republican Congress defined it very narrowly. The state followed the federal lead, in my home state of Pennsylvania they adopted the Federal Rule on attachment subject to a bottom just above the SSI limit. If your income was below that limit and it was all you could earn it was a hardship, but if you were CAPABLE of working and earning more then that limit, your wages were attachable to that limit. Most states follow similar rules. Hardship has be be shown by the payee, and mere inability to pay is NOT enough unless it is do to an inability to earn that money (For example if the payee is still in School, and I mean High School more then Collage, or is on Social Security which can be attached).

Yes, to much of a burden can be a defense against attachment, but the burden is on the person who is subject to the attachment to show it is to much of a hardship AND that hardship in NOT his own creation (For example, going to Jail does NOT end one's duty to pay child support, it arrears while that person is in jail and subject to wage attachment afterward).

[JohnnyRingo]

4. Sheriff Joe goes to unusual lengths when no one's paying attention to him

He makes prisoners wear pink under ware, gives them bread and water, and plays loud music the prisoners don't like.
The only thing sheriff Joe doesn't do, is reduce crime in Maricopa County.

But goll-y!...Who doesn't like to watch people abused and humiliated for committing minor misdemeanors?

Crime Statistics
Crime Increasing in Maricopa County
http://phoenix.about.com/od/crimestatistics/a/crime2006.htm

I'm glad the tax payers get their money's worth in John McCain's backyard.

[Granny M]

6. My repub in-laws in Chandler

just think this guy is precious. He really "shows" those criminals. If they weren't such wonderful people, apart from this one area, I would be furious with them.

[JohnnyRingo]

11. Kudos to you for not letting politix split your family.

Especially over such a petty issue.
Your inlaws have been subjected to Sheriff Joe's media blitz that he does every election cycle, it's no wonder they like him.

Someday, perhaps an opponent will use a billboard including a graph showing crime stats since he's been in office, with his picture next to it. Ask when Arpaio is going to start doing his job instead of playing S&M games with his prisoners.

Welcome to DU.

[EFerrari]

7. Proof that human waste can hold elected office.

[October]

16. My dad never paid a nickel, or remembered a birthday...ever

He left the state, changed his SS#, and never had contact in any way.

While in California, he would tell his buddies it was all his ex-wife's fault...the law was against him... the judges were wrong, etc. After some time, he just denied having any kids.

Yes, there are real deadbeats out there...and some are parents. My father was the victim of his own decisions. My brother and I suffered enormously.