How do you feel about jailing dads who are behind on child support in this economy?

[grasswire]

Let's stipulate this: Parents should support their children. Period.

But should taxpayers pay $37,000/year to jail a parent who is currently underemployed and fallen behind on support?

The usual arguments apply.

Jailing a person for falling behind means he/she loses any income and there will be no support forthcoming for the child.

Jailing a person to the tune of $37,000 or more a year means revenue to the prison industrial complex, instead of new shoes for a child, or better food, or a baseball glove, or utility payments.

Millions of parents fall behind in child support. The courts demand exhorbitant fines. Those fines feed the bureaucratic system. Less money for children.

There are better ways to deal with this problem.

Put the parent to work. If he/she can't find work, put them into a jobs program.

America must wean itself from criminalizing this situation. We can't afford to jail parents who just can't make it now.

[Xipe Totec]

1. And I thought debtor's prisons were banned. nt

[slackmaster]

5. They are banned, but people can still be imprisoned for contempt of court

Someone who has the ability to pay but refuses, may be in contempt of court.

HTH

[grasswire]

11. people who don't have the ability to pay are being jailed too

And that is the goddam truth.

[Aerows]

14. Women who can barely get by

are just as shackled to their children. You don't have freedom anymore when you have a child. You have to adjust your priorities if you are a parent. That's what a lot of men don't grasp, because they think they are entitled to not worry about "womanly" things, only their job and their masculinity. Women can't do that. They have to become father and mother in many cases, both providing and nurturing.

What's wrong with a man that is too preoccupied with his masculine pursuits, and HIS self-fulfillment that he can't be a father?

Answer that. That's called "male privilege". Men don't get pregnant, and therefore don't think about it. It's also selfishness. You are either a very selfish person, or you aren't. A single woman struggling to raise a child is anything but selfish.

[slackmaster]

29. I'd like to see some verifiable evidence of that, please

I mean actually incarcerated for not paying, rather than some legal "technicality" like not showing up for a hearing (i.e. contempt of court.)

Thanks in advance.

[Glassunion]

37. It's not so much the laws, it is that they are enforced improperly.

Everything should be taken on a case by case basis. Period. The problem lies in zero-tolerance.

I had one of my employees get tossed in jail for a weekend a few years ago, but here is the kicker. His support payments were paid in full and on time. The state we work in had a zero-tolerance policy on late payments. 1 day late and you were in contempt and subject to arrest and DL suspension, so if you were caught driving, your could also be fined for driving on a suspended license. A year after the state enacted this policy, child services determined that support payments were to be automatically deducted from your paychecks and placed into your "fund" to be distributed by them.

The problem occurred when child services was late in distributing the check to his daughter... By 20 days. They suspended his license and served him with an arrest warrant when his ex called to complain that she had not received a check. No one, not the ex not the state ever called my employee to let him know that a payment was missed. They arrested him on a Saturday night, and he could not get in front of a family court judge until Monday morning.

[slackmaster]

38. So, the charge in your example was actually contempt of court

Not failure to pay money.

[Glassunion]

41. It was the failing to pay money that he was charged with contempt.

Maybe other states are different, but in NJ the father is guilty until proven innocent.

Many people don't understand that when a judge makes an order for child support he is creating custom-made law just for the father to follow. If the father fails to comply with the terms of the child support order, then he can be found in contempt of court. In most civil cases, the issue is only civil, and it doesn't necessarily involve the prospect of incarceration. This is not true of child support. The failure to pay child support has therefore developed into a quasi-criminal type of case, in which he can be found in violation of both civil terms, as well as criminal laws.

In New Jersey if you don't pay child support, then this is a prima facie case of a willful noncompliance. As a result, the burden of proof is on the father as to his innocence of the contempt.

On Edit: I'm so glad my wife and I have decided against having children... We are still tossing coins as to who will spayed or neutered.

[arcane1]

17. Hell, I was sentenced to 10 days in jail for not paying a speeding ticket in time

and got out after 5 days due to weekend overcrowding.

Needless to say, the state spent far more to lock me up than the ticket was worth, and they still never got the money for it.

A silly solution indeed!

[grasswire]

19. at least you didn't lose your job over it.

And you raise a very very good point.

[arcane1]

25. I did lose my job, a temp job in an office

They arrested me during my lunch break :(

[slackmaster]

30. What was the actual charge for which you were convicted and jailed?

Was it for not paying, or was it for contempt of court?

[arcane1]

32. I don't recall, it was over 15 years ago

I'm not sure if it's even possible to look up that info now..?

[slackmaster]

39. I can look up a 15-year-old case in my jurisdication (San Diego County, CA) online

YMMV

[arcane1]

40. Interesting... how?

I did a little googling a few minutes ago to see what can find, but had no luck. This was in Richmond, VA.

[slackmaster]

63. Go to the "Court Index" link at the San Diego County Superior Court's Web site

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

[closeupready]

2. Jail someone and they lose their job, and future income potential. Way to go, people.

:eyes:

[chemp]

3. with a good job- yes

unemployed or underemployed case by case basis.

[Rex]

4. I think everyone that makes under 16k a year should be jailed

in a for-profit, private jail so they can work for 1k a year and make the owners of the prison some really good $$$! America - we respect your right to go to jail and not pass go!

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Garnish their wages...

put a lien on their property.

Putting them in jail will not deliver one cent of child support.

I've known a few deadbeat dads, and the didn't pay their child support by choice rather than necessity.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. It's a stupid idea regardless of the economy.

They owe child support -- how about allowing them to work so they can pay their child support? Putting them in jail renders no child support. In what universe is this logical?

[ixion]

8. The same way I'd feel about it in ANY economy: I'm against it.

Garnish their wages, but something like that in no way, shape or form deserves prison time.

[RebelOne]

9. Yes, they should be jailed.

And this is from personal experience because I was divorced from a dead-beat dad, who did not contribute one cent toward our two children.

[grasswire]

13. I'm sorry for your situation.

But would you have done better if there was a way to require him to work and pay?

Did you ask the state to enforce payment, by the way?

[RebelOne]

22. This was in the '70s and I got a lawyer to send him a letter

to scare him into paying. At that time. the law did not go after dead-beat dads as they do now. Well, after that, I received a whole $20. My kids are now grown, and they know why I curse their father to this day. He died 10 years ago.

[pipi_k]

55. I had that experience too, back in the mid 70s to early 80s...

The kids' father started out giving me money, then the next week it was less, then less, until finally it was zero.

On top of that, even though he had full visitation rights, he would often disappear for weeks...months...at a time.

No visits. No letters. No phone calls. Nothing.

Then one day out of the blue he would show up and be all "Mr Fun Dad" taking the kids out and buying them stuff and they would be happy thinking he was going to be back in their lives again but then he would disappear like before. They used to cry at night, thinking maybe he had died.

I was talking with my son the other day about that. He's 40 years old but still remembers sitting around waiting, waiting, waiting for his dad to show up and being so horribly disappointed.

I don't think parents in arrears on child support should be in jail, but I think in this case it would have been OK because at least my kids would have known where their father was and could have seen him more than every 3 or 4 months.

[shanti]

64. well

i had two ex deadbeat dads for husbands (sure could pick them, huh?), but neither one of them was ever jailed for nonpayment of cs. they both had their driver's license suspended though, but eventually got them back. now both of them are disabled and cannot work. i ended up raising and supporting my kids on my own, but i would not wish that they were sent to jail for it. it's over and done with now :shrug: my kids know the truth, that's all that matters.

Ironically, one of my sons has a child of his own, but he has been unemployed most of the time since his birth. he desperately wants full time work so he can support his child, but there is none available here. he's even considering moving to alaska or somewhere else far far away from his child so that he can work, which kills him to even think about as he's close to him. :(

[RZM]

10. It's a tough one

But I disagree that jailing somebody necessarily means revenue for prisons INSTEAD of new shoes etc. Some of those fathers wouldn't cough it up even with the threat of jail. After all, that's why they are in trouble in the first place.

In July of 1944 the Soviet Union enacted a new family law. One of its provisions was that it essentially absolved fathers of having to support their children and stipulated that the state would take over such duties when fathers wouldn't perform them. They were winning the war by that point and were looking toward the postwar period and increasing the birthrate to replace the many millions who had died. The policy turned out to be a failure and didn't do much to increase the birthrate, but it did enable men to take advantage of the situation and leave their wives/baby mothers for other women without having to contribute at all to the upbringing of their children. The policy was eventually reversed in the 1950s.

It's a slippery slope to sanction 'deadbeatitude' (yes I made that term up :)). We already have a problem with deadbeat fathers and I fear that removing the threat of sanctions might make the problem a bit worse. But I don't know. It's a tough call.

[Aerows]

12. Here's the issue

Men should be just as accountable as women are to the children they fathered. How are the women and their children faring in this economy?

Women can't just abandon their children just because times are tough if they want to keep them. Men can and do, knowing that women won't ditch the kids, no matter what she has to do to keep them.

So what is fair, exactly? Leaving the woman to completely shoulder the responsibility of raising a child alone, and often by any means necessary, and I mean *ANY* means necessary, or a man being forced to come up with the money to do so? Are they willing to do any means necessary, or are they absolved of the need to care that much?

Answer that question, and you will realize the problem.

[grasswire]

16. no one is saying that fathers shouldn't be responsible

And it is true that there are some who either don't care about the welfare of the child, and some who are so angry at the mother that they want to punish her too.

But it is ALSO true that many well-intentioned fathers just cannot find enough work in this economy to meet the court-ordered obligation.

So the system wants YOU to pay $37,000 per year to the prison industrial complex to confine that father, meaning that he will lose whatever work he has.

Then likely the children suffer more.

And the welfare costs increase to care for the family. Paid by you and other taxpayers.

I am arguing for a better way. A way that puts more money toward the children and less money toward profiteers and the system.

[Aerows]

21. The problem with that argument

is that again, women will usually hold on to their children by any means necessary. Many men won't - i.e. taking a crappy job.

If a man is working, and barely getting by, then aren't his payments reduced? That's the way it should be. If he's unemployed, but can get gainful employment, then yes, he should be jailed if he's too lazy to work. His children's mother is, because she's holding onto the kids.

Some men don't seem to understand that children are a lifetime commitment beyond an opportunity for their own pleasure and an affirmation of their virility. Women have to understand it.

If Dad is working the only shitty job he can get, great, reduce the payments. If Dad isn't working, Dad needs to go to jail until he understands the repercussions of not providing - because Mom certainly does. She will get thrown in jail, too, if she neglects the kids, a fact many ignore, and will condemn her for.

Dad needs to understand before he whips it out that there is a new condemnation for running around sticking it in everything he sees without taking proper precautions.

[grasswire]

26. maybe dad whipped it out before his job was sent overseas.

You do understand that the real unemployment is about twenty percent? That there are men and women who have been without work for years now? That have no prospect of work again?

There's one in my family. He lost his job last year to downsizing. He had once been the general manager of a wonderful and successful hotel-winery-spa. Now he's without work for a year so far. He's over fifty. He can't find work. His daughter (over 18) asked the state to collect from his unemployment, and that is happening. But when unemployment runs out, who knows what will happen? He has supported his children for 18 and 19 years so far.

I wonder how jailing a parent helps to get money to a child's needs?

Wouldn't it be better to have mandated works programs where a percentage is siphoned off directly to the child's interests? There are plenty of public projects that could provide work. Fixing potholes. Repairing schools. Working in food banks. Making public gardens.

[Aerows]

33. Dear Lord, I agree with you there 100%

We NEED infrastructure repair jobs. BADLY. This is pretty much like the Depression. What will it take for those in Washington to see it, instead of this divisive bullshit that is killing us and our economy?

Public works are in dire need, but all some see is "welfare". It isn't welfare if we are all working hard in our communities improving our crumbling infrastructure.

I do not disagree AT ALL. Money is being pulled from our communities, and directed towards useless wars to build up the infrastructure of countries where we don't need to be in the first place!

[nini]

61. The woman is usually able to go on welfare though if unemployed

That helps her get by -as it should.

There is a difference between a deadbeat dad and one who is a victim of this economy and can't find a job - you are lumping them together.

[justabob]

15. can't get blood from a turnip

Especially a turnip that is locked up. I agree there has to be SOME kind of enforcement carrot/stick, but jailing "deadbeats" does absolutely NOTHING to solve the problem, at least in regard to poor folks, un/underemployed et al. Rich/comfortable dads (or moms) that refuse to pay may be a different animal though. What good does jailing someone do? How is that person going to come up with the money they owe sitting in Cell Block B... or stamping license plates, breaking rocks, whatever, when they couldn't come up with it free, even if they were WILLING to pay. I have never understood this.

[grasswire]

18. there is no logic to the current system

It is not built on logic.

It is built on "profit opportunity" for those who build jails, finance the construction, manage them, and for those politicians who receive donations from the prison industrial entities.

[justabob]

23. sadly, that is the part I DO understand

I live in Texas. :) I just marvel that we accept it. I understand the emotional satisfaction one might get locking up their ex, but at the end of the day, you still aren't getting that check. That might be enough for some people, but for most I think they'd rather just get the damned check.

DO you think those folks who REFUSE to pay (regardless of financial status) should be treated differently than those that CAN'T pay?

[grasswire]

27. sure

But I'm not sure that jail is the best remedy, considering the cost to the taxpayers.

[justabob]

35. agreed

I didn't mean to be advocating jail. I just wonder how we would make the distinction, and what remedy would do the trick. Garnishment and tax refund redirect, as others have mentioned, seem like easy fixes, at least for employed people, as for the others.... dunno.

[Aerows]

28. Once Dad gets out

The rationale is that he realizes he will get back into trouble if he doesn't get motivated to start providing. Women get that negative reinforcement immediately, because they are providing for the children. Dad doesn't see it and doesn't have to get his heart broken every day.

In past times, a man would have to watch his kids starve and do without along with his wife. Now, they can just go away and not face the consequences. Think about it.

[tularetom]

20. Put them to work filling potholes or picking up litter in the parks

Pay them would anyone else doing the same job would receive and withhold 50% of their pay to send to their children.

[Obamanaut]

24. Garnish their wages (if they have any), intercept their income tax refund

(if they get one), but jail is dumb.

Even garnishment of wages and taking the IRS refund doesn't work for many - they work for cash for relatives or friends, and show no income and have no income to report to IRS.

The dependent child is the loser in all of this.

[krispos42]

31. What's wrong with seizing assets instead?

Or lacking that, some sort of house arrest?

[L0oniX]

34. Jailing them will get them a mugshot which will be posted on mugshot sites and end up on Google's...

first page and of course that will make it harder for them to get a job.

[Rainbowreflect]

36. I actually worked in child support enforcement and it is not simple.

First off a noncustodial parent is only arrested if they are order to appear in court and fail to appear, or if they are found in contempt of court. On the failure to appear they will most likely appear in court w/in 24 hours and just be ordered to appear at a later date. If they are found in contempt of court they will most likely be order to pay a set amount monthly or be jailed. Neither of these happen quickly, they party will have numerous warnings before it does. Sometimes it is the only thing that works.

[grasswire]

43. in what state?

I know of a man who just was hit with a warrant without any warning, for not paying full payments. (He is underemployed)

[elleng]

48. He should inform court of changed circumstances, if this occurred.

[etherealtruth]

51. Really

I'd be very curious to know what state. I realize state laws vary but child support laws are contingent upon income and they are usually readily modified when there is a change in circumstance such as unemployment ...

[PufPuf23]

42. The policies and trail of events are regressive

on economic and social levels.

Rational would be to place the men in a public sector infrastructure trade apprentices or at least service service job and deduct the child support.

FDR did with WPA/CCC and Nixon (and Carter continued) did with CETA (as well as YOC and NYC for those under 18) in the 60s and 70s.

Direct Federal sector hiring went the way of the extremely inefficient and bureaucratic Job Training Partnership Act process under Reagan. Direct Federal job creation has since been a never on the table option though both parties should know better. Attempts to kill good governance multiply because of purges and the best talent leaving in droves by choice.

[grasswire]

45. thoughtful policy doesn't happen because companies make $$$$$

....off imprisoning any people they can drag into the system. There are better ways to deal with problems.

[mzteris]

44. so maybe a determination should be made

between he who won't work versus he who wants to but isn't finding anything.

Of course in either case, it's the kids who are suffering. But to lock up a dad for non-payment for circumstances BEYOND his control does seem to be a bit - harsh. And shortsighted!

[grasswire]

46. ayep

But it's happening all across the country.

[KG]

47. the US must lead the world in reasons to imprison its citizens.

[xphile]

49. I know someone who is over 20 thousand dollars behind in child support

His wife buys Coach bags and brags about how much she pays for them.

I have no qualms about seeing that bastard rot for awhile.

He has a job. He refuses to pay.

[w8liftinglady]

50. I've been there. I definitely do not support it

Shit happens.
A kid deserves both parents.
dad in jail because he doesn't pay for the kid does nothing but destroy the kid.
Not a good thing..it helps no one.

[underpants]

52. My father split out of the blue one day when I was 4 and contributed $180 total for 2 children

that is $180 total ever. This was the early 70's and because he was across state lines there was almost nothing my mother could do. As she says, "I had 2 kids, a car, and $1,000".

In the age we live in there is no reason to not collect from deadbeats. Mind you - 30% of this country has never had a checking account they live out of the web.

I never begrudged my father I just simply never had one as far as I was concerned. I my mother met my stepfather when I was 12 and had love, that is all I cared about.

[southernyankeebelle]

53. Putting them in jail so we can support them while in jail. What good is that.

[pipi_k]

54. I don't support it even in better economic times...

Really...what's the point?

They're costing more to be in prison than they owe, most of them...

[21st Century FDR]

56. They sure as hell can't support their kids in prison.

How the Hell are these fascist private prisons for profit legal anyway?

[Philippine expat]

57. If they involuntarily lost their job then no jail time

If they just don't pay then jail them

[aikoaiko]

58. Some probably should be jailed.

I think it would have to be a case by case evaluation of whether or not the deadpeat parent could or couldn't provide.

[krabigirl]

59. I am against this in any economy. Why is jail the answer for everything?

Oops, that's right, lockstep authoritarians can't wrap their minds around anything other than that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. This Country is hopeless! We put the wrong people in prison. And why? Because we can.

We suck!

[ceile]

62. Every situation is different. Your question is too broad. n/t