driver's licenses

[kaysixteen]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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?

[Hegemony]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[ciao_yall]

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?

[kaysixteen]

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.   

[Mobius]

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.

[kaysixteen]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[Mobius]

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?

[kaysixteen]

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.