driver's licenses

[kaysixteen]

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?

[lightning]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[lightning]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.).

[jerseyjay]

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. 

[downer]

Does the policy work? Do more men pay child support in this state compared to similar states without this policy?

[Caracal]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[lightning]

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.

[Langue_doc]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[clean]

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.

[Caracal]

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...

[lightning]

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.