I am, for personal reasons, finding it helpful to solicit opinions on the following topic: there is a guy in my church, 62, who lost his DL about 15 years ago, not for physical reasons or criminal ones, but as sanction from the state for long-standing arrears of back child support obligations for a daughter born (I think) out of wedlock when he was maybe 19 or 20. His relationship with the girl's mom ended soon after she was born, and fairly soon thereafter he just stopped paying support. So when the law was changed allowing DL suspension, even though the daughter was of age, the debt remained. I do not know how much the debt is, but it could be in the low five figures (I asked the pastor at the time if the church could pass the plate and come up with a grand to pay it off and get him back on the road, but he told me that it was much more than this). As a guy whose quite frankly deadbeat daddy more or less never paid any child support for my brother and me, and disappeared fully before I was ten, I confess to having enormously little sympathy for deadbeat daddios. I certainly encourage state action to make 'em pay up, but wonder whether the DL removal thing is counterproductive? Thoughts?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 28, 2023, 10:41:53 PM
I am, for personal reasons, finding it helpful to solicit opinions on the following topic: there is a guy in my church, 62, who lost his DL about 15 years ago, not for physical reasons or criminal ones, but as sanction from the state for long-standing arrears of back child support obligations for a daughter born (I think) out of wedlock when he was maybe 19 or 20. His relationship with the girl's mom ended soon after she was born, and fairly soon thereafter he just stopped paying support. So when the law was changed allowing DL suspension, even though the daughter was of age, the debt remained. I do not know how much the debt is, but it could be in the low five figures (I asked the pastor at the time if the church could pass the plate and come up with a grand to pay it off and get him back on the road, but he told me that it was much more than this). As a guy whose quite frankly deadbeat daddy more or less never paid any child support for my brother and me, and disappeared fully before I was ten, I confess to having enormously little sympathy for deadbeat daddios. I certainly encourage state action to make 'em pay up, but wonder whether the DL removal thing is counterproductive? Thoughts?
If it sounds like the deadbeat will never pay it, and it sounds like the guy never will, then, yeah, take away the license.
I'm all for a compassionate and forgiving type of Christian grace in fellowship within a church community, but I withhold it when the welfare of a child is involved. And, furthermore, it sounds like your church practices Christianity from the perspective of judgement rather than a perspective of grace, so judge away.
It's certainly counterproductive, insofar as (1) it diminishes his ability to earn money and, thus, pay child support, and, more importantly, (2) it leaves the mother high and dry.
If the state cared at all, it would pay the child support and assume the debt. It makes no real difference to the state, but it makes a world of difference to the mother and child.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 29, 2023, 07:26:30 AM
It's certainly counterproductive, insofar as (1) it diminishes his ability to earn money and, this, pay child support, and, more importantly, (2) it leaves the mother high and dry.
If the state cared at all, it would pay the child support and assume the debt. It makes no real difference to the state, but it makes a world of difference to the mother and child.
The opportunity for the deadbeat to earn money and pay child support is long gone, as the child in question is already long grown-up and the mother made it work without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
The opportunity for the deadbeat to earn money and pay child support is long gone, as the child in question is already long grown-up and the mother made it work without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
I understand it's punitive. I just think that gets the priorities backwards. It seems vastly more important to me to support the single parent than to punish the debtor. As I said, it seems to me that a more effective solution is for the state to assume the payments and the debt, and to do what it usually does to collect on debts owed to it (viz., garnish wages and tax returns, etc.).
Taking away somebody's ability to earn money--and hence pay child support--seems counterproductive if the purpose is to get people to pay child support. It also seems counterproductive if the goal is to lessen the need for government assistance ("welfare") since by taking away his driver's license the penalty is both making it more likely the child will require government assistance AND that the father will need some sort of government assistance. It would seem that the main thing that taking away somebody's driver's license for unpaid child support would encourage would be a) more people driving without licenses or b) more people leaving the state altogether. That being said, according to this site, all 50 states do this to some extent or another: https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/license-restrictions-for-failure-to-pay-child-support
There is a separate question about how to get a driver's license back, especially since this happened so long ago. If the man is now 62, and this happened 15 years ago, he would have been 47 when the driver's license was suspended. The child is now 42 and it seems that having his driver's license suspended forever is pointless. My advice for the man in question is to talk to an attorney about ways to get it restored. But that's not what you asked.
Does the policy work? Do more men pay child support in this state compared to similar states without this policy?
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 05:17:08 AM
If it sounds like the deadbeat will never pay it, and it sounds like the guy never will, then, yeah, take away the license.
This seems perverse to me. The point of these laws is supposed to be to get people to pay child support. It obviously hasn't worked since it's been 15 years. You seem to want to keep this guy from being able to get a license as a punishment or to express your disapproval of his actions. I wouldn't agree with that as a general principal since we don't take away people's driver's licenses for committing crimes unless those crimes have something to do with their ability to drive a car without endangering others. In this case, all of this happened more than 20 years ago. I don't think the state should be punishing people for something they did that long ago. It sounds like the guy can't pay, rather than won't pay so exactly what purpose is being served here? This is an example of the way laws often end up really screwing over poorer people in a disproportionate way.
Whether you should have sympathy for this guy is a different question. For me, it would depend on how he talked about what happened and what he had tried to do to make some amends. However, it's worth keeping these things separate. Lots of people do things I find morally repugnant, but that isn't a good litmus test for whether they can drive a car.
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
ork without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
Again, I don't agree that losing a driver's license is a proper punishment, but even putting that aside, he should just be punished forever because you think that's the only thing that would be an effective deterrent? Besides, many of the consequences of someone not having a license are going to be borne by other people-kids spouses etc.
Quote from: Caracal on January 29, 2023, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
ork without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
Again, I don't agree that losing a driver's license is a proper punishment, but even putting that aside, he should just be punished forever because you think that's the only thing that would be an effective deterrent? Besides, many of the consequences of someone not having a license are going to be borne by other people-kids spouses etc.
All very nice, but you offer no real solutions.
I don't want to argue unless I can propose a solution, so I propose letting the victims weigh in.
Leave it up to the kid that was affected (and/or the single mother). If the kid and/or the single mother forgives the deadbeat dad, then the deadbeat can have his license back. If not, then the victims have spoken.
I would love to hear your proposed solution, rather than questioning the premise of another solution.
Yeah, I would have loved to have the state step in and help out financially, back then, but it's too late for that, in this case that kay16 puts forward. So that solution is off the table.
Quote from: jerseyjay on January 29, 2023, 09:20:21 AM
Taking away somebody's ability to earn money--and hence pay child support--seems counterproductive if the purpose is to get people to pay child support. It also seems counterproductive if the goal is to lessen the need for government assistance ("welfare") since by taking away his driver's license the penalty is both making it more likely the child will require government assistance AND that the father will need some sort of government assistance. It would seem that the main thing that taking away somebody's driver's license for unpaid child support would encourage would be a) more people driving without licenses or b) more people leaving the state altogether. That being said, according to this site, all 50 states do this to some extent or another: https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/license-restrictions-for-failure-to-pay-child-support
There is a separate question about how to get a driver's license back, especially since this happened so long ago. If the man is now 62, and this happened 15 years ago, he would have been 47 when the driver's license was suspended. The child is now 42 and it seems that having his driver's license suspended forever is pointless. My advice for the man in question is to talk to an attorney about ways to get it restored. But that's not what you asked.
+1 for consulting with an attorney or even talking to someone in Legal Aid.
We've got two separate issues: whether it's right to punish a man for something that happened a number of years in the past; and whether denying him a driver's license is a suitable punishment.
I will certainly agree that punishment is merited. It doesn't matter if the mother "made it work anyway." The child is half is and he owes support. The mother is unquestionably out thousands of dollars in covering for the man who decided he didn't want to be lumbered with the consequences of his actions. I'm sure he'd like to get off scot-free now. I don't know why his wages weren't garnished; presumably there is a story there. Many men work under-the-counter or self-employment jobs so they can get away with claiming insufficient income. Not saying that's what happened here; just saying it's a known strategy. In cases of low or no wages, the child support is commonly reduced to something like $200 per month. You may way "But what if he can't spare $200 per month?" To which the answer is "It costs to feed, house, and clothe a child, whether he can 'spare' the money or not."
As to whether the debt should expire if the child is grown — why should it? First, the mother is still out that amount of money. If you quit paying your credit card or your student loans, they don't go away just because you refused to pay. Surely child support is more vital to its recipient than those. And that lack of support probably led to continuing consequences: greater student debt, or inability to afford extra tutoring that might have helped the student get through nursing school or into college. Child support doesn't all go into frivolities like fancy sneakers. And we certainly can't cancel it on the idea of "Well, it probably would have been spent for fancy stuff I don't approve of anyway."
And as has been pointed out, canceling child support debt after a certain point certainly encourages deadbeat dads just to hold out until their debt is automatically canceled. That money is owed; that money needs to be paid.
I believe that jail is also an option for deadbeat dads.
IF you think taking a driver's license is counterproductive, then putting them in jail where they are unable to work would be worse.
Other options include suspending professional licenses. (take a doctor's medical license for instance!)
Except that it works.
If the 'deadbeat' thinks that paying child support is too big an expense that they can not afford, then change it from an expense problem to a revenue problem! IF deadbeat has NO income, then no food, no rent, nothing.
It is meant to be a big penalty! It is a huge incentive!
Im not sure that I followed the OP, though. He is in his 60s and stopped paying ages ago, and then the law changed so he lost his license 15 years ago?
Did he stop paying before the law changed, and was then hit by a huge back payment?
I dont know if there is a remedy for something like this, especially without a license for 15 years.
I dont believe that bankruptcy would resolve the issue as I believe that child support payments are paid even before taxes (though I could be wrong about the order of things). Just sayin, I dont think that they are dischargable.
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 29, 2023, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
ork without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
Again, I don't agree that losing a driver's license is a proper punishment, but even putting that aside, he should just be punished forever because you think that's the only thing that would be an effective deterrent? Besides, many of the consequences of someone not having a license are going to be borne by other people-kids spouses etc.
All very nice, but you offer no real solutions.
I don't want to argue unless I can propose a solution, so I propose letting the victims weigh in.
Leave it up to the kid that was affected (and/or the single mother). If the kid and/or the single mother forgives the deadbeat dad, then the deadbeat can have his license back. If not, then the victims have spoken.
I would love to hear your proposed solution, rather than questioning the premise of another solution.
Yeah, I would have loved to have the state step in and help out financially, back then, but it's too late for that, in this case that kay16 puts forward. So that solution is off the table.
My proposed solution? Lots of bad ideas come out of the idea that there's supposed to be some "solution" so we should do something even if it is does harm and doesn't really do the thing it's supposed to do. The problem with things like taking away driver's licenses is that the impact falls disproportionately on poor people. If someone with more money thinks they can't afford their child support payments anymore, they can probably hire a lawyer, go to court and get the payments reduces, maybe even if they shouldn't be able to. Even if they actually just fail to pay, they probably can negotiate some kind of deal or payment plan before they get their license taken away. Losing the ability to drive is also going to hit a poor person harder in most cases and is the kind of thing that could easily send someone into poverty. Maybe that's just desserts for deadbeats, although I think that's harsh, but what about their families, kids, spouses. Heck, what about the damage to the larger economy that someone who could be working a decent job can't because they have no way to get there.
So I don't know, find better ways to garnish wages? That might actually get money...
Quote from: Caracal on January 29, 2023, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 12:27:45 PM
Quote from: Caracal on January 29, 2023, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
ork without the child support that the deadbeat was supposed to pay.
The issue is whether it's OK for the state to punish the deadbeat retroactively by taking away a drivers license from a person who defaulted on child support payments in the distant past. Since no further harm can come to the child nor can time be turned back to make things right, then the deadbeat needs to lose his license, for no other reason than there has to be some accountability for bad choices and a deterrent for future deadbeats who want to make the same bad choice.
Again, I don't agree that losing a driver's license is a proper punishment, but even putting that aside, he should just be punished forever because you think that's the only thing that would be an effective deterrent? Besides, many of the consequences of someone not having a license are going to be borne by other people-kids spouses etc.
All very nice, but you offer no real solutions.
I don't want to argue unless I can propose a solution, so I propose letting the victims weigh in.
Leave it up to the kid that was affected (and/or the single mother). If the kid and/or the single mother forgives the deadbeat dad, then the deadbeat can have his license back. If not, then the victims have spoken.
I would love to hear your proposed solution, rather than questioning the premise of another solution.
Yeah, I would have loved to have the state step in and help out financially, back then, but it's too late for that, in this case that kay16 puts forward. So that solution is off the table.
My proposed solution? Lots of bad ideas come out of the idea that there's supposed to be some "solution" so we should do something even if it is does harm and doesn't really do the thing it's supposed to do. The problem with things like taking away driver's licenses is that the impact falls disproportionately on poor people. If someone with more money thinks they can't afford their child support payments anymore, they can probably hire a lawyer, go to court and get the payments reduces, maybe even if they shouldn't be able to. Even if they actually just fail to pay, they probably can negotiate some kind of deal or payment plan before they get their license taken away. Losing the ability to drive is also going to hit a poor person harder in most cases and is the kind of thing that could easily send someone into poverty. Maybe that's just desserts for deadbeats, although I think that's harsh, but what about their families, kids, spouses. Heck, what about the damage to the larger economy that someone who could be working a decent job can't because they have no way to get there.
So I don't know, find better ways to garnish wages? That might actually get money...
Again, all very nice. I award you virtuous paladin points. I'm not going to hammer away at you for returning to questioning solutions over finding solutions, and for expanding the argument to larger policy issues even though the OP wanted us to weigh in on a specific case. What saddens me is that you make no mention of the victims of the deadbeat, which is why my proposed solution included the involvement of the victims. I wanted to see if you cared at all about the victims in this specific case. Please say that you do.
Doesn't restitution seem more valuable to the victims than a vote on petty retribution decades after the fact?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 29, 2023, 05:12:45 PM
Doesn't restitution seem more valuable to the victims than a vote on petty retribution decades after the fact?
Of course restitution is better, but that doesn't seem to be an option, in the original case presented by the OP.
It is a stupid law. It has no affect on the wealthy guy on Park Avenue who takes subways and taxis in NYC and does not own a car. I can sort of get by without a car if needed but others absolutely can not. There are better ways to get money from the deadbeats.
I think there are several questions touched upon here.
1. Effectiveness. It would seem that the most effective measure is if the government garnishes somebody's wages. Taking away a professional license (medical license, say), might work. Taking away somebody's driver license might work, or it might cause somebody to drive without a license or take public transportation. In this particular case, it obviously did not work. I suppose some of comes down to WHY the father did not pay child support. That is, somebody who is marginally employed and can barely pay the rent is different than a highly-paid professional who just doesn't want to pay.
2. Morality. This is a whole other issue.
3. Longevity. Somebody who has a child should help support the child. But how long should this hang over somebody? In New Jersey, the statue of limitations for prosecuting most crimes is five years, although there is no limitation for rape or murder. Arguably, if somebody fathered and abandoned a child 42 years ago (i.e., during the first Reagan administration), much has happened since then. He should have helped, but is there a point to continuing to prevent him from driving?
4. Practicality. If a 62 year old suddenly decides to make good on the child support, how, exactly, should he do this? If he owed $100/month (which I know is low), should he send a check for $21,600 ($100x12x18) ... to the mother? To the child? To the government? Should he include compound interest?
I can think of other questions, too: should the OP be friends with somebody like this? What should the person involved do to get his driver's license? What should the mother or the child do?
4. Practicality. If a 62 year old suddenly decides to make good on the child support, how, exactly, should he do this? If he owed $100/month (which I know is low), should he send a check for $21,600 ($100x12x18) ... to the mother? To the child? To the government? Should he include compound interest?
[/quote]
Apparently, a pretty significant amount of back child pay is owed to governments. If the child qualified for various programs because of the lack of monetary support from a parent, the government is owed that money.
Quote from: lightning on January 29, 2023, 04:29:28 PM
What saddens me is that you make no mention of the victims of the deadbeat, which is why my proposed solution included the involvement of the victims. I wanted to see if you cared at all about the victims in this specific case. Please say that you do.
People should pay their child support. Not even trying to do so is a moral failure, as is failing to be involved in a kid's life. How his kid or the kid's mother feel about him is a private issue and there's no reason to connect it to the question of whether he can have a driver's license 40 years later. To me, it seems like asking someone to decide whether their absent father can get a driver's license is an undue burden to put on them. I would imagine the response of many 40 year old people would be "why the hell are you asking me? This isn't something I want to bring into my life, but now I feel like if I say I don't want anything to with it, I'm keeping him from getting a license."
Interesting article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/child-support-states.html) about effective and counter-productive policies regarding deadbeat parents.
Regarding suspension of driver's licences, looks like most states have some such policy (https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/license-restrictions-for-failure-to-pay-child-support). Seems to be due to a requirement from congress. This report (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41762.html) on the issue is thorough.
QuoteData
In FY2009, about $32 billion30 was collected from noncustodial parents by CSE agencies. CSE annual program data do not specifically report on the amount of child support obtained due to state driver's license suspension policies. States often include those collection totals with data related to other license suspension policies (e.g., professional and recreational) and more often than not such collections are contained in a category called "other." In FY2009, $5.1 billion was collected through this "other" sources category. (See Table 1.)
The most effective child support enforcement tool is income withholding, a procedure by which automatic deductions are made from wages or other income. Once initiated, income withholding can keep support flowing to the family on a regular basis. As shown in Table 1, in FY2009, about 67% of child support collections were obtained through income withholding, 6% by way of the federal income tax refund offset, 5% from the unemployment intercept offset, 4% from other states, about 1% from the state income tax refund offset, and 16% from other sources.
Quote from: downer on January 30, 2023, 07:07:28 AM
Interesting article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/opinion/child-support-states.html) about effective and counter-productive policies regarding deadbeat parents.
Regarding suspension of driver's licences, looks like most states have some such policy (https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/license-restrictions-for-failure-to-pay-child-support). Seems to be due to a requirement from congress. This report (https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41762.html) on the issue is thorough.
QuoteData
In FY2009, about $32 billion30 was collected from noncustodial parents by CSE agencies. CSE annual program data do not specifically report on the amount of child support obtained due to state driver's license suspension policies. States often include those collection totals with data related to other license suspension policies (e.g., professional and recreational) and more often than not such collections are contained in a category called "other." In FY2009, $5.1 billion was collected through this "other" sources category. (See Table 1.)
The most effective child support enforcement tool is income withholding, a procedure by which automatic deductions are made from wages or other income. Once initiated, income withholding can keep support flowing to the family on a regular basis. As shown in Table 1, in FY2009, about 67% of child support collections were obtained through income withholding, 6% by way of the federal income tax refund offset, 5% from the unemployment intercept offset, 4% from other states, about 1% from the state income tax refund offset, and 16% from other sources.
Thanks, that's helpful. The opinion piece highlights something we might be missing. We have all been assuming this guy had no involvement in the kid's life, but that might not actually be the case. He also might not have been able to pay child support, or alternatively, made some poor financial decisions at 21, fell behind in the payments, and they ballooned to an amount he could never pay. But, we should be careful not to assume that means he never supported the kid in any way, or was completely absent.
Quote from: jerseyjay on January 29, 2023, 08:15:41 PM
I think there are several questions touched upon here.
1. Effectiveness. It would seem that the most effective measure is if the government garnishes somebody's wages. Taking away a professional license (medical license, say), might work.
This seems ridiculously counterproductive. A professional license makes it possible for someone to earn
more money than they would otherwise, so revoking (or suspending) a professional license would make the person
less able to pay the debt. As others have said, there surely have to be better ways of garnisheeing wages ( or maybe adding to a person's tax bill?) that actually
leverage the person's high earning ability.
(And for many people lower on the economic ladder, revoking the driver's license may also make it much harder for the person to make money. It seems to be a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.)
Quote4. Practicality. If a 62 year old suddenly decides to make good on the child support, how, exactly, should he do this? If he owed $100/month (which I know is low), should he send a check for $21,600 ($100x12x18) ... to the mother? To the child? To the government? Should he include compound interest?
IF you have your license suspended, then the government/state agency is involved. They will track what you owe (if there is interest, include it), and most likely you will pay that to the state and the state will forward it to the proper person. But there are 50 states and assorted territories, so that may not be the universal standard, and as soon as I would say 'every state' someone would be the exception!
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 28, 2023, 10:41:53 PM
I am, for personal reasons, finding it helpful to solicit opinions on the following topic: there is a guy in my church, 62, who lost his DL about 15 years ago, not for physical reasons or criminal ones, but as sanction from the state for long-standing arrears of back child support obligations for a daughter born (I think) out of wedlock when he was maybe 19 or 20. His relationship with the girl's mom ended soon after she was born, and fairly soon thereafter he just stopped paying support. So when the law was changed allowing DL suspension, even though the daughter was of age, the debt remained. I do not know how much the debt is, but it could be in the low five figures (I asked the pastor at the time if the church could pass the plate and come up with a grand to pay it off and get him back on the road, but he told me that it was much more than this). As a guy whose quite frankly deadbeat daddy more or less never paid any child support for my brother and me, and disappeared fully before I was ten, I confess to having enormously little sympathy for deadbeat daddios. I certainly encourage state action to make 'em pay up, but wonder whether the DL removal thing is counterproductive? Thoughts?
Suspending a driver's license to punish behavior that really has nothing to do with driving seems counterproductive, all right. So he has been without a license for 15 years now? That sounds like a good way to push somebody into poverty so that he'll probably never be able to pay his obligations.
The New Testament takes offenses like this very seriously as a moral and ethical issue. In Paul's first letter to Timothy he says that anybody who will not support his own family "has denied the faith and become worse than an unbeliever." If this man is an active member of your church, then surely he has long since tried to own up to what he did wrong in his youth? He's not paying now not because he refuses, but because he simply doesn't have the money? Sometimes people have to pay a heavy ongoing price for past wrongs even after they've repented of them.
If the man truly wants to make practical amends for his past sins, and is willing to put some money into it--even if it's just a little and comes as a real sacrifice to him--then it would be a real act of grace for other church members to help him with that. The gesture might even help to pave the way for an eventual reconciliation with his estranged daughter. Whether there's a practical way to pay the whole debt off gradually, I don't know, but the state really ought to allow some means of making good-faith efforts to do so for the rare deadbeat dad who's actually owned up to his responsibility.
All you law-abiding citizens seem to think that suspending a person's driver's license will keep them from driving. Sure, it should keep them from driving. I don't know what the statistics are, but I know a whole lot of people are out there driving without licenses. Both times when my car was hit by another car, the driver had no license. (And no insurance.) And a great many drunk drivers have had their licenses taken away and they keep on driving.
I know you may well say, "But the design of this is bad, even if the guy keeps on driving." That may well be. But my guess is that he's still driving.
The discussion here made me think of debtor's prison: By imprisoning one takes away the ability of anyone to work and therefore even marginally pay off the debt. Taking away driving or other licenses amounts to the same thing.
So, how did debtor's prison end? There is talk of the usual "we got more civilized", around 1833 in the US of A. But guess what? The abolition of debtor's prison was contemporaneous with the sophistication of bankruptcy law! That is to say, if it is determined that somebody cannot pay his or her debt by outside pre-determined standards, the debt is extinguished.
But did debtor's prison end completely?
Apparently not. Here is a description of what goes on in law and practice https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prisons-then-and-now-faq (https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/02/24/debtors-prisons-then-and-now-faq) Though the case of unpaid child support is not mentioned, the criminal vs. civil aspects of all such case are completely ambiguous.
The law on child support is completely inefficient and smacks of a reluctance to decide on how to treat it. Garnishment of wages and/or bankruptcy would be fine in civil cases, but the changeover to criminal behavior, if any, must be made clear.
Don't sneeze at bankruptcy: Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. I suppose deadbeat borrowers will have to go to jail at some stage.
Quoteseem to think that suspending a person's driver's license will keep them from driving. Sure, it should keep them from driving. I don't know what the statistics are, but I know a whole lot of people are out there driving without licenses. Both times when my car was hit by another car, the driver had no license. (And no insurance.) And a great many drunk drivers have had their licenses taken away and they keep on driving.
I, for one, and more than aware of the numbers driving without a license.
But get pulled over or in an accident without one and you might end up in jail anyway. Now for a criminal complaint.
having a valid license or insurance does not prevent you from getting into accidents. Having insurance at least softens the blow to your pocketbook, though.
As for debtor's prison, my mind wanders to Ebenezer Scrooge... "are there not debtors prisons or work camps?..." and in response to the notion that "some would rather die"... the reply "then let them get about it and reduce the surplus population".
(I studied the Dismal Sciences myself).
Does the punishment fit the crime? Does it deter people from skipping their child support payments?
Maybe no (a value judgement/ and what would be an appropriate punishment related to not supporting your children?). for the second, probably yes! Take away a license to drive, as well as the professional licenses of those with them, and you will see more compliance!
"Poor people dont have professional licenses" you say? Well, that may be why they are poor! Lots of trades pay better than professors!
Garnish wages? Well then some wont work at all (in the legitimate economy. Thus creating an IRS issue IF they get caught!)
I hear it takes a village to raise a child. It certainly takes a village to support one if the deadbeat shirks on his/her responsibility! It is not the child's fault that the parent is a deadbeat, but they suffer most. So anything that can be done to collect is fine with me! Support the children, not the deadbeat's take home pay!
At the extreme, we heard recently about riots in Iran. Then we heard about Iran hanging rioters (age 20 somethings!). Now we dont hear about riots OR hangings! What would it take (short of hanging mind you,) that would work?
Im off on a tangent.
Tell us what would work?
QuoteTell us what would work?
There are tradeoffs wherever one looks!
It seems to me garnishment is the best answer to current liabilities. It reduces paid work effort, but a lot less than than pay in a labor camp. [Hell, even Beria wanted to end forced labor for that reason -- he wasn't the humanitarian.]
Then it's also best for past liabilities for the victims -- mother and child and the state -- are owed something.
So, greatest net benefits come from garnishment, the freedom lover's labor camp.
'Could be the deterrence effect of harsh punishment is so great that the number of deadbeats falls so much that society is better off [measured in dollars], but some victims still have to be compensated! Taxpayers could possibly do that and still be better off, never mind the losses of the deterees. I just don't think that that's true. Free riding is too easy and tempting for enough men.
Balancing all these unknowns I'd say garnishment plus a penal tax [on account deterrence helps] for as long as it takes to pay what's due.
Before I send a separate post explaining further my thinking on dl suspensions for child support arrears/ responding to others' comments above (as always for which I am grateful) I guess I had better elaborate on this particular man a bit more.
The man's personal behavior in terms of financial practices and work habits has been poor for decades, long before he came to us in '07. He regularly ran up debts, left jobs, etc., argued with bosses, but mostly he tried over the years to work as an under-the-table 'contractor', presumably to avoid child support wage garnisheeing. He also refrained from filing income taxes for at least 8 years, before the IRS got wind of him. Then, the church hired a tax atty for him, who settled with the IRS on his behalf, all of which was also paid for by the church, to a total of at least $10k. (I guess Leavenworth is worse than no dl). And that was at least a decade ago. The church has given his family extensive financial support over the years, and his wife, healthy and in possession of a dl, also will not work ( I have hired her to do the tailoring I need done, and she is doing a good job at it), even as the man ripped off several members of the church, or people to whom he was recommended by the church, in doing handyman-type house projects. Our congregation is not at all large, still has a debt on our less than 10yo bldg, and, like it or not, and many of the folks in the church have lost patience with them.
And this was before, last week, when the man established a Go Fund Me site, attempting to solicit $2k to go on a 25th anniversary trip. My having remembered all these details about him has resulted from his having asked me to forward the GFM appeal around to various people, including my own FB friends. I am therefore having to deal with an increasing, rapidly increasing, stream of negative emotions. I confess to being bugged by his appeal for vacay funds ( I am, after all, a very underemployed middle aged academic), but I will acknowledge that my level of buggedness is lessened, actually quite a bit in his case, by the reality that this particular man is one of the very dumbest men I know, a walking-talking exemplar of the Dunning-Krueger effect. It is also true that just within the last two years he has contracted cancer, and a few other health issues, and will almost certainly not be able to work going forward.
A few more things about me here: I mentioned that my own father was a deadbeat. He was. Like it or not, by any reasonable standard of the term 'scumbag', he qualified. I am a Christian, of course, committed to the 5th commandment, and I very much do not like saying this. But the 9th commandment is also there. When church guy asked me to send around his pathetic GFM vacay appeal, this brought on reflection, which made enormous amounts of negative thinking wrt deadbeat daddios come racing on up to the surface, things I had not spent much time thinking about significantly in many a year. I can and will interact with some of the substantive issues raised in this thread, but would have to allow that, were I called to jury duty, if in voir dire it was explained that the case had something to do with a man who was a deadbeat daddy, I would ask the judge to recuse me from the case because, though I would try, I do not think I could be objective.
Now as to some of the thoughtful issues raised in response to my original post:
1) Our church just cannot afford to pay much more for this family. We have extensive other obligations. But even if we did not have such, if any deadbeat simply could continue to deadbeat, and expect the church to pay, then, at least in theory, anyone could become a deadbeat, and, well... And as apl helpfully pointed out, Paul is explicit in telling Christians that 'he who will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel'. This is harsh language, very different from the sweetness and light approach to Hallmark Card-style 'Christianity' that is very common nowadays. I seek to have compassion to all, but when I have to decide between having compassion for deadbeat daddio, or his abandoned daughter, well... And remember that, while this man is older and sick now, he actually contracted a marriage after abandoning his support obligations, and then had another child.
2) All this is true for believing Christians within the context of a voluntary church community. But it is not even in the same universe with what is true regarding the state/ society in general. Simply put, children must be supported, period and full stop, and most Americans, and I mean most Americans, high percentage, black and white, Democrat and Republican, etc etc etc, believe that the primary responsibility for supporting children should fall on the shoulders of their able-bodied parents. Almost no one really thinks that deadbeat daddio should be able to laze about, blazing up, whilst the care of his scions should be shunted to the taxpayers, and any attempt to suggest that the state should just assume child support debt obligations is going to be less successful than getting Donald Trump to marry Hillary Clinton. It is true, at least in theory, that some if not many child support owers may find themselves unemployed, and taking away their dls is a problematic solution. A much better one, perhaps, might well be something like this: tell able-bodied daddio that he has 30 days to secure lawful, above-table employment from which support obligaitons might be garnisheed, and if he does not, on day 31, we will be helpfully showing up at 0500 to take him to work on the pothole patrol. Many studs, faced with this dilemma, will doubtless find that the imminent prospect of hard labor will have the salutary effect of focusing the mind towards better, more ethical and socially responsible behavior.
3) It is certainly also true that this sort of cudgel law, taking dl away, is an example of pendulum-swinging. We all know that, for decades, essentially forever, we really did nothing to enforce child support requirements in this country. Then, as feminism increased, more women entered politcs, and more Americans of both genders came to realize that the financial needs of children exceeded those of deadbeats, such laws were enacted. Revisions of such policies are probably a good idea, but wholesale reversion to previous policies, esp in a place such as Massachusetts, well, let's just do a thought experiment here: how exactly might one go about convincing Gov. Maura Healey to do anything like that?
Well, I would have stopped funneling money toward this man a good long time ago. And forwarding his GoFundMe would be tantamount to vouching for the fact that he's an upstanding citizen who deserves people's extra dollars so he can take a vacation, which I think would count as bearing false witness.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 31, 2023, 12:12:55 AM
Now as to some of the thoughtful issues raised in response to my original post:
1) Our church just cannot afford to pay much more for this family. We have extensive other obligations. But even if we did not have such, if any deadbeat simply could continue to deadbeat, and expect the church to pay, then, at least in theory, anyone could become a deadbeat, and, well... And as apl helpfully pointed out, Paul is explicit in telling Christians that 'he who will not provide for his own has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel'. This is harsh language, very different from the sweetness and light approach to Hallmark Card-style 'Christianity' that is very common nowadays. I seek to have compassion to all, but when I have to decide between having compassion for deadbeat daddio, or his abandoned daughter, well... And remember that, while this man is older and sick now, he actually contracted a marriage after abandoning his support obligations, and then had another child.
2) All this is true for believing Christians within the context of a voluntary church community. But it is not even in the same universe with what is true regarding the state/ society in general. Simply put, children must be supported, period and full stop, and most Americans, and I mean most Americans, high percentage, black and white, Democrat and Republican, etc etc etc, believe that the primary responsibility for supporting children should fall on the shoulders of their able-bodied parents. Almost no one really thinks that deadbeat daddio should be able to laze about, blazing up, whilst the care of his scions should be shunted to the taxpayers, and any attempt to suggest that the state should just assume child support debt obligations is going to be less successful than getting Donald Trump to marry Hillary Clinton. It is true, at least in theory, that some if not many child support owers may find themselves unemployed, and taking away their dls is a problematic solution. A much better one, perhaps, might well be something like this: tell able-bodied daddio that he has 30 days to secure lawful, above-table employment from which support obligaitons might be garnisheed, and if he does not, on day 31, we will be helpfully showing up at 0500 to take him to work on the pothole patrol. Many studs, faced with this dilemma, will doubtless find that the imminent prospect of hard labor will have the salutary effect of focusing the mind towards better, more ethical and socially responsible behavior.
Basically same problem. The truth is that not everyone who is "able bodied" can always get full time above board employment. It can be tempting to believe that they can but it isn't true.
Besides, as that article pointed out, some of these people are providing support for kids, but the other parent has to apply for monetary support in order to get government benefits. If, for example, a father is taking care of kids for a substantial period of time, that might be saving a lot of money on childcare.
It sounds like the church has tried hard to show grace and accept responsibility to care for those in need. But the church isn't there to cater to unrepentant freeloaders. The New Testament options in this case seem pretty clear.
Something tells me this guy doesn't have a DL because (1) He didn't want to pay for one; or (2) He lost it due to a DUI.
When I first read your post I thought "there has to be more to this story." And sure enough, there is.
So why are you asking us if suspending a DL is an appropriate punishment when clearly the guy has far bigger problems?
That is just not true. The fellow has his difficulties, of course, but drinking is not one of them. And around here, one does not lose one's dl for 15 years for a DUI... heck, we have a lawyer in the church who represented another church member who has *multiple* DUIs, in the past. And a DL here only costs fifty bucks for five years.... we could give him that if he has no money at all. In any case, the church leaders thoroughly investigated this guy's circumstances, and what I said is indeed true, and the reason for his DL loss. I confess it concerns me that you would even entertain the thought that we did not do that, and there are other issues involved.
Some states, such as Arizona, mandate garnishment of wages for every parent who pays child support. This leads to some taking under-the-table jobs.
Nothing says the church has to keep enabling poor choices and behavior. Medicaid and SNAP can provide some help. He could get public housing, right? I'd suggest the church funnel any funds to the mother directly if it is going to provide anything in the future.
I remember asking once why he was not on snap and on the list for a public apt. It had to do with his repeated nonpayment of taxes, or something like that, but that was many years ago. There is obviously a complicated legal morass facing the guy, but it is also true that:
1) most people in the church have more or less just given up on dealing with him
2) he is not only very unintelligent, as I have said, but extremely stubborn. I suspect he has been encouraged to apply for things like this, offered legal help to do so, and turned this suggestion down, which is exacerbated by the reality that...
3) our pastor is just not good at holding people accountable, and prefers to avoid the problems with various members.
I do not even know whether the mother of this 40+yo daughter is still alive. I suspect the idea of funnelling church funds to either of them, like it or not, in order to subsidize the child support arrears, would go over like a ton of bricks.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 31, 2023, 08:43:10 PM
I remember asking once why he was not on snap and on the list for a public apt. It had to do with his repeated nonpayment of taxes, or something like that, but that was many years ago. There is obviously a complicated legal morass facing the guy, but it is also true that:
1) most people in the church have more or less just given up on dealing with him
2) he is not only very unintelligent, as I have said, but extremely stubborn. I suspect he has been encouraged to apply for things like this, offered legal help to do so, and turned this suggestion down, which is exacerbated by the reality that...
3) our pastor is just not good at holding people accountable, and prefers to avoid the problems with various members.
I do not even know whether the mother of this 40+yo daughter is still alive. I suspect the idea of funnelling church funds to either of them, like it or not, in order to subsidize the child support arrears, would go over like a ton of bricks.
In some ways, the guy's personal circumstances actually make an argument against taking away a drivers license for non payment. You actually can't get everyone to pay child support-some people are really committed to being crummy. I think most of us have known someone like this and they are infuriating, but if you build a whole system designed to get them to pay up and punish them if they don't, you end up ensnaring people who are actually trying to do their best under difficult circumstances and making life impossible for them.
It's very similar to the way that we've constructed a criminal justice system that is designed to deal with hardened dangerous criminals, and ends up treating everyone who has committed a violent crime, like they are a mass murderer who given the chance will kill again. The result is that there are lots of guys in their 40s in jail who did not something really terrible and really stupid when they were 19. The vast majority of these men wouldn't be a danger to anyone if they got out, yet somehow it's important that they stay locked up because of vague ideas about moral responsibility and the need to deter other 19 year olds from doing terrible and dumb things.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 31, 2023, 08:43:10 PM
I remember asking once why he was not on snap and on the list for a public apt. It had to do with his repeated nonpayment of taxes, or something like that, but that was many years ago. There is obviously a complicated legal morass facing the guy, but it is also true that:
1) most people in the church have more or less just given up on dealing with him
2) he is not only very unintelligent, as I have said, but extremely stubborn. I suspect he has been encouraged to apply for things like this, offered legal help to do so, and turned this suggestion down, which is exacerbated by the reality that...
3) our pastor is just not good at holding people accountable, and prefers to avoid the problems with various members.
I do not even know whether the mother of this 40+yo daughter is still alive. I suspect the idea of funnelling church funds to either of them, like it or not, in order to subsidize the child support arrears, would go over like a ton of bricks.
You don't lose eligibility for back taxes. He is playing everyone. I'm sure giving him money goes over well, too, or do the members just not care?
Most of the current members probably have no idea of the full extent of the details of this guy's case, nor the amount of money the church has funnelled into his family. There are a variety of reasons for this. But what is common knowledge is enough to more or less ensure that there would be little sympathy for more money to be spent.