Should Men Go To Jail When They Fail To Pay Child Support?

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
Over the years there have been reports of celebrities and average citizens alike serving jail time for not paying child support. We might not have much sympathy for celebrities who fail to make payments. But what about men who are working poor? Should those people, mostly men, many Black men, be incarcerated for this infraction?

In their report, The New York Times says “the threat of jail [is] considered an effective incentive for people who are able but unwilling to pay.”

But critics of this policy believe this incentive traps “poor men in a cycle of debt, unemployment and imprisonment.” The cycle is believed to begin with the court order that requires the child support payee to pay an amount they cannot afford. Steep child support payments may never be paid or are paid occasionally but not in the full. As time passes, these payments become an incomprehensible amount of debt.

If the payment is not paid at all or in full, authorities withhold 65 percent of the payee’s paycheck, seize bank accounts and tax refunds, suspend driver and professional licenses and lastly impose jail time.

Parents who are truly destitute go to jail over and over again for child support debt simply because they’re poor. We see many cases in which the person is released, they’re given three months to pay a large amount of money, and then if they can’t do that they’re tossed right back in the county jail,” says Sarah Geraghty, an attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights. The group recently filed a lawsuit in Georgia for parents who are incarcerated for failing to pay child support but have no legal representation.

The New York Times says there is no national count of parents who are incarcerated for failing to pay their child support and enforcement to pay varies from state to state. Though, a survey claims in 2009, one in eight inmates in South Carolina was imprisoned for not paying their child support. In 2010, 3,500 parents were been imprisoned in Georgia for this reason, and 1,800 parents were given ankle monitors or jailed in two New Jersey counties during 2013.

It should also be noted, in some states if the parent who receives child support is on public assistance, the parent who pays child support must pay it back. By paying both child support and welfare reimbursement, most child support payees are not able to live above a practical income level. Therefore, those parents lag behind their bills, rent/mortgage or living expenses adding to their dire financial circumstances.

Many believe people should not conceive children they cannot afford, especially when child support plays a dramatic role in co-parenting. But that rule of thumb does not apply to those who have created children during their marriage. It is believed that Walter Scott, who was shot in the back while fleeing former Police Officer Mike Slager, did so because he didn’t want to have to go back to jail over unpaid child support. He has children conceived both with in and out of wedlock.

http://madamenoire.com/527459/pay-child-support/?awesm=awe.sm_dM5ko
 
How about... go to jail and have special program that force him to doing labor that will pay the child support. Ta-da?
 
If the guy is working his paychecks can be garnished by the court this would made more sense than sending him to jail. Why should taxpayers get stuck paying for his jail time.
 
Sending the men to jail for non-payment reminds me of the old British debtors' prisons. I don't think that's a productive solution since they obviously can't earn the money they need for the payments while they're in jail. In fact, it's an extra expense and cell-space burden for the community to house them in jail.

I support attaching their paychecks and tax refunds but also working out reasonable payment plans.

I truly feel for the moms who have to raise their children without the fathers' financial support. Too often the men are baby makers but not fathers. :mad:

Society also has a responsibility. No, not to pay the child support. Society needs to quit accepting (and even promoting) out-of-wedlock birthing and baby daddies as desirable ways of life.

It seems ironic to me that in this day and age where all kinds of birth control is available, all kinds of sex education is available, and abortion is available there are so many births happening to unmarried women. (I'm not promoting abortion; I'm just stating the reality of what's out there.)

Also, in this age of technology, it's certainly possible to track these men and their incomes, especially before they become years behind in their payments.

As an incentive, increase the fines for delinquent payments, and reduce the fines after the man has a proven track record of making timely payments.
 
If the guy is working his paychecks can be garnished by the court this would made more sense than sending him to jail. Why should taxpayers get stuck paying for his jail time.
I don't know if it is the same in every state but I do know that in Washington the child support is or can be taken from the paycheck if the non-custodial spouse responsible for child support (there are women who owe child support too) is working. At least it can be arranged that way- I know in the case I know about they had to write checks for child support to the ex. After some major problems and another trip to the courts he requested it be directly deducted from his paycheck.

With the person I know the child support takes a giant chunk out of his check. He ALSO pays for anything additional when needed (when he doesn't have to but does since the mother(s) aren't the greatest in the world). That leaves little for himself and his wife (he was previously married).

That method is a good means but what happens when the father/mother WAS doing well with the child support and is a decent person then loses their paycheck aka job. Is it fair to throw them in jail? I get that those who consistently avoids paying child support (have heard of at least one story where the father did make good money or at least some but blatantly refused to pay) should be the ones who ought to get some kind of punishment but for those who have no means of continuing through no fault of their own don't deserve it.

reba said:
As an incentive, increase the fines for delinquent payments, and reduce the fines after the man has a proven track record of making timely payments.

Hmm good point but wouldn't that also cause a huge backlog and huge sums if the person continues on a path where their paycheck (or lack thereof) is not enough to cover the stated amount? I would think that both parties should at least go back to court/negotiations (hmm that's not the word I wanted) to readjust the child support amount based on the income in question.

I definitely have learned quite a bit about child support etc in the last few years (from others- I have no children).
 
Last edited:
So many, many women w/children have never seen a dime of child support. Some men even go to the extreme of giving up all their parental rights to the State to avoid paying anything..(when the child(s) is in foster care or up for adoption)...Some moved from state to state, one step ahead of the Law...Even I, if I could get "back support", I'd be a very rich lady. Tried that once, and as soon as he found out, he skipped town...and most states won't attempt to locate the man if he isn't in the State and if they don't know where he is residing....The men will also "work under the table" to avoid being caught and having their wages garnished.....

Locking up these men?...Doesn't do any good I feel...it hasn't worked for years. Perhaps they should be made to work and their paycheck garnished...give them a place to live, such as a rooming house and food to eat.
 
I agree that there needs to be some sort of consequence but I really feel that we lock people up who might need a different punishment.
 
I forgot about the "working under the table" angle... that goes in the other direction too with the custodial parent trying to cheat the system by doing that and trying to get more child support that way.
 
I forgot about the "working under the table" angle... that goes in the other direction too with the custodial parent trying to cheat the system by doing that and trying to get more child support that way.

:hmm:...the custodial parent has to pay rent and utilities...clothes, food, shoes, recreation and be with the child almost 24/7....whatever extra $$ they can get by working, even if it's under the table,,then kudos to them....The non-custodial, dead beat parent does nothing.....Say what?....
Some mothers even babysit to take in a little extra money for their kids. State Aid doesn't cover everything...so why should the non-custodial parent get by with just fending for himself?...Takes 2 to tango....
 
:hmm:...the custodial parent has to pay rent and utilities...clothes, food, shoes, recreation and be with the child almost 24/7....whatever extra $$ they can get by working, even if it's under the table,,then kudos to them....The non-custodial, dead beat parent does nothing.....Say what?....
Some mothers even babysit to take in a little extra money for their kids. State Aid doesn't cover everything...so why should the non-custodial parent get by with just fending for himself?...Takes 2 to tango....

If the father wants to be s part of the childs life, then yes he should support the chiLd.
If he doesnt...then he shouldnt be forced to.
As for jail. indeed its counter productive to jail a man and expect him to learn.to be a good fther while inside...it actually works the opposite...
 
If the father wants to be s part of the childs life, then yes he should support the chiLd.
If he doesnt...then he shouldnt be forced to.
As for jail. indeed its counter productive to jail a man and expect him to learn.to be a good fther while inside...it actually works the opposite...

:hmm:...So if the Father doesn't want to be a part of his child life...he shouldn't be forced to?....If everybody felt that way...then we all would be on State Aid, all in foster homes....A wham...bam...and thank you mamm?...and "you're pregnant?...tough...I don't want any part of it"....and on to the next...and the next....without using protection....

Feel we adults know there are conquences to our actions when we know better....
 
:hmm:...So if the Father doesn't want to be a part of his child life...he shouldn't be forced to?....If everybody felt that way...then we all would be on State Aid, all in foster homes....A wham...bam...and thank you mamm?...and "you're pregnant?...tough...I don't want any part of it"....and on to the next...and the next....without using protection....

Feel we adults know there are conquences to our actions when we know better....

As you so elequently put it.it takes two to tango. ...as for everyone thinking the above....re support.
No. We wouldnf...nof t all. I think you should ask yourself whaT good does it actually do for the child to force a a prent to be involved with that chiid against the parents desires...? That seems rather dangerous and irrisponsible if you ask me.
Thats certainly not in the childs best interets. Or hoW is putting a parent in jail, for not paying support.in the best interest of the child?
I can think.of a one reason. If the purpose of jailing the parent is to teach him.criminal.skills,how better to play the system, how better to play the drug game, so on...then sure jail will do that.
Is that in the best interest of the child? Maybe. If the parent will staty esrning.more loot then sure...who cares where it comes from i guess..
Mmmmmm
 
As you so elequently put it.it takes two to tango. ...as for everyone thinking the above....re support.
No. We wouldnf...nof t all. I think you should ask yourself whaT good does it actually do for the child to force a a prent to be involved with that chiid against the parents desires...? That seems rather dangerous and irrisponsible if you ask me.
Thats certainly not in the childs best interets. Or hoW is putting a parent in jail, for not paying support.in the best interest of the child?
I can think.of a one reason. If the purpose of jailing the parent is to teach him.criminal.skills,how better to play the system, how better to play the drug game, so on...then sure jail will do that.
Is that in the best interest of the child? Maybe. If the parent will staty esrning.more loot then sure...who cares where it comes from i guess..
Mmmmmm

If the man does not want to be in the child's life...no sense in forcing it, I agree...BUT...he needs to help support that child
 
If the man does not want to be in the child's life...no sense in forcing it, I agree...BUT...he needs to help support that child

No.he loses the child, he doesnt want. Thats his punishment....
Makes no sense to froce the man to pay if he doesnt have anything at al to do eith the child...
 
I agree the man needs to sport a rubber and the women needs to take birth control....
That is a good way to prevent future tragedies of parentless children...
 
Back
Top