12
   

Should Fathers Be Incarcerated for Child Support?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 01:58 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
ZarathustraReborn wrote:

If the father has no choice, how is her DECISION to keep and raise that baby anyone else's decision? You keep evading this. Impregnation is NOT "having a baby." Those are distinctively different phenomena. That is why you can abort an fertilized seed, but not a child. That scientific, biological separation.

I might consent to SEX, but that does not mean I consent to having a CHILD. If you can't understand that difference, you probably should just leave the conversation.
In an age where women have complete control over whether they have a baby or not, and men have very little control over it, I have to say that our thinking on mens responsibilities for unwanted children seem very out of date. The feminists always retort with " well, you dont have to have sex", but to me lack of sex is a punishment, it is not a fair expectation that men will go without sex simply because they dont want kids, which I add again are very easy for women to prevent being born.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 01:58 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

I know of at least two men who have been locked up for 1 or 2 weeks in order to remind them they owe it to their kids to support them. I dont support putting them in jail for longer periods of time because they cant earn money while in jail.

Which implies that you support 1-2 weeks.

Why?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 02:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
There is a wide variation but it appears that the cost per day to imprison someone is on average about $100/day
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-version-021914.pdf

What do we get out of spending $1400 to put a guy up for two weeks? I know of guys who have done a half dozen or more stints in jail for lack of child support, so this is not necessarily a one time expense either.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 03:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
and men have very little control over it,


All they have to do is keep their pecker in their pants. No problem for someone who has just a little will power.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 03:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
To remind them they have an obligation to support their children. Some need more reminding than others.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 03:28 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

To remind them they have an obligation to support their children. Some need more reminding than others.

Does it work? What does science have to say on what our return on investment is?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 03:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
9 Unfortunately,
national data do not exist with respect to how often the incarceration option is used. CSE agencies
generally do not track arrests for nonpayment of child support and the record-keeping of sheriffs’
offices or prosecuting attorneys’ offices on this topic is sporadic, nonexistent, and/or inconsistent
across jurisdictions.20

http://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-and-Incarceration-for-Non-Payment-March-6-2012.pdf

Well hell, if we dont even track how often we jail these guys there cant be much in the way of record keeping to see if it works. We see this so often in America, where we do what we want to do with no evidence that it is a good idea.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 04:02 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Child Support Enforcement: Incarceration
As the Last Resort Penalty For Nonpayment
of Support

Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Policy
Alison M. Smith
Legislative Attorney
Carla Berry
Information Research Specialist
March 6, 2012

http://www.ncsea.org/documents/CRS-Report-on-CSE-and-Incarceration-for-Non-Payment-March-6-2012.pdf

This is a very depressing read, full of crap like "it is argued" and almost completely devoid of evidence of the efficacy of warehousing deadbeat dads in prisons as we have done for over 50 years. It looks like this program has been done on the back of " it sounds like it should work".
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 04:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
Interesting

Quote:
By the time PRWORA became law in 1996, it was known that there were a
significant number of parents owing child support who themselves were living at
or below the poverty line. For example, a report indicated that California’s arrears
were highly concentrated among noncustodial parents with low incomes and high
arrears.66 Further, a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics noted that in 1997
most fathers in state prisons reported incomes below the poverty line prior to
incarceration, with 53% earning less than $1,000 in the month before their
arrest.67 Nevertheless, obligors continued to be treated as one homogeneous
group, and their failure to pay seen as automatically willful. President Clinton
assured an audience (a week prior to signing the welfare reform bill) that
nonpayment of child support was a serious crime, comparing it to robbing a bank or a 7-Eleven store.68 To press his point, the President warned: “if you owe child support, you better pay it. If you deliberately refuse to pay it, you can find your face posted in the Post Office. We’ll track you down with computers . . . . We’ll track you down with law enforcement. We’ll find you through the Internet.”69 As was typical of the discourse surrounding debtor parents, the President made no distinction, as a matter of fact or policy, between deadbeats and deadbrokes. He certainly made no mention of people in prisons and the structural barriers to compliance, or how such enforcement of delinquent child support might impact prisoners or their families.70 The goal was to make child support obligations inescapable, “like death or taxes.”71


http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=facpub

Quote:
As indicated, this Amendment sets forth three distinct provisions: that once
entered as final, any payment or installment of support due under a child support
order is an enforceable money judgment by operation of law; that such a
judgment is entitled to full faith and credit within and across state boundaries;
and in its most cited provision, that the judgment cannot be retroactively
modified by any state, except for pending petitions, but only prospectively.
In arguing for his proposed amendment, former New Jersey Senator Bill
Bradley stated, “[t]his bill recognizes that circumstances change. The noncustodial
parent may lose his or her job and not be able to afford the original child
support award. This bill is not intended to prevent changes in future child support
orders if circumstances change for the parents . . . .”112
The practical effect of this Amendment is that it prohibits courts or agencies
from reducing or eliminating a support order once it is issued, for any reason. The Bradley Amendment does allow for retroactive modification in some circumstances:
when the money is owed to a non-TANF custodial parent and that parent
agrees to waive arrears, and in some limited circumstances, when the arrears are
owed to the state to repay welfare costs and the state engages in a program
designed to reduce arrears.113
The Bradley Amendment mirrors other legislation that seeks to capture the
mass of parents owing child support with a wide net, due to the poor collection
efforts common to states during the period in which it was enacted. Prior to the
Amendment, it was a common practice for noncustodial parents owing support to
amass arrears, only to have the amount owed reduced or eliminated by invoking
unlimited judicial discretion in another state to obtain the reduction. Congress
intended this amendment to eliminate this practice.114 The Bradley Amendment
allows downward modification of child support orders prospectively, but only
from the filing date of an application to modify.
Nevertheless, the Bradley Amendment didn’t contemplate relief for incarcerated
parents with child support orders, or any other child support defendant who
was unaware of an existing child support order. Nor does it offer retrospective
relief to a parent, who has for any reason, failed to affirmatively petition for a
modification before arrears accrue.115 The Bradley Amendment has met with
opposition from many quarters due to its inflexible application.116 Most notably proponents of repeal or revision cite egregious scenarios involving child support
debt incurred by noncustodial parents.117 One such situation concerned a
noncustodial father who was held hostage in Kuwait for almost five months,
unable to comply with the Amendment’s notification procedures.118 A second
case involved a man who was falsely incarcerated for murder, exonerated and
released, only to be arrested for non-payment of child support.119
One need not consider such extreme instances of unintended consequences to
understand the generally negative effect of the Bradley Amendment on a great
number of incarcerated parents. Many prisoners discover long after imprisonment
that a federal law has foreclosed any possibility of a reduction after
accruing significant debt. Further, prisoners are subject to state law, which often
forbids them from petitioning a court for even a prospective suspension of arrears
simply because they are incarcerated.


I continue to be amazed at how far law makers have gone to remove from judges the ability to make just rulings, and that this depowering of the courts has been done to enforce retribution. And we are now shocked to see what a clusterfuck our "justice" system is??!!
0 Replies
 
ZarathustraReborn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 04:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
The funny thing here is, all these women advocates keep chirping the same line. "Keep it in your pants." But any sensible person knows that "keeping it out of your pants" is inversely true and applicable if we are going to entertain that as an argument. Might as well use that for abortion and sex ed. (Oh, wait, every idiot conservative already does.)

But yes, hawkeye10, thank you for at least participating in a reasonable discussion.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 04:51 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
Quote:
As a last resort, after all attempts to collect have failed, Pater’s office will pass off a case to the prosecutor. A non-custodial parent who misses payments for 26 weeks out of a consecutive 104 weeks can be charged with felony nonsupport. Pater said people ask him what good it does to lock up someone, since they can’t pay support from prison.
“We are aggressive where we need to be,” he said. “There are people who have the ability to pay, they just don’t want to be responsible. Eventually, they have to be held accountable. We have worked that case absolutely every which way we can, and that is the absolute last resort.”


http://www.journal-news.com/news/news/counties-top-state-in-child-support-collection/ncMQF/

Not hearing any argument that jailing deadbeats helps to get resources to the kids(and we get told that this is all about the kids), I have no choice but to conclude that jailing deadbeats is about retribution.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 04:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
Maybe jail time is seen as a deterrent to others.
ZarathustraReborn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:14 pm
@roger,
And maybe not allowing women infinite power of the checkbook would deter them from having children they cannot afford with men who are not fully committed. Again, the inverse position can be taken. I'd advise people here to read the book "Sperm Wars." Pretty scientific account of female infidelity and their biological mating tactics.

And hawk, of course it's about retribution. It surely isn't helping the children.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:30 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Maybe jail time is seen as a deterrent to others.


That is meaningless, as the perception might just as easily be fantasy as fact. Do you have any science?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:37 pm
Quote:
Judge Hazelwood, Lieberman, and others were state and local officials, but
national figures also spouted ideological pronouncements casting underclass
fathers as disreputable agents of poverty. These figures included Republican
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush as well as
Democratic President William Clinton. The latter promised to “end welfare as
we know it,” and he did in fact replace the Aid to Families with Dependent 124
Children (AFDC) entitlement with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program. When President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) into law in 1996, he
explicitly linked welfare reform and child support together. “For a lot of 125
women and children,” Clinton said, “the only reason they’re on welfare
today—the only reason—is that the father up and walked away when he could
have made a contribution to the welfare of the children.
”126
The magnitude and range of federal child support legislation enacted since
the mid-1980s are striking, especially because family law has traditionally been
a state concern rather than a federal matter. In 1984, Congress enacted a new
127
round of amendments to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Designed to get 128
delinquents to pay up, the amendments directed states to enhance efforts to
collect child support by making available employer withholding, liens against
property, and deductions from tax refunds.
129
In 1992, the federal government took even bolder steps to address the
problem of unpaid child support. Political leaders on both sides of the
aisle—Republican Congressman Henry Hyde and Democratic Congressman
Charles Schumer, for example—spearheaded the effort to enact the Child
Support Recovery Act (CSRA). The only opponents of the act were members 130
of the nascent fathers’ rights movement. Some of them questioned the 131
assumption that child support delinquency caused poverty and argued that most
of the impoverished families headed by unmarried mothers would not be lifted
out of poverty even if the delinquent fathers somehow paid their child support.132
Having found a convenient whipping boy in the “deadbeat dad,” Congress
ignored the argument.



http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=facpub

This idea that deadbeat dad laws are a part of a wider class warfare program on the part of the well to do against the underclass is one that I have heard before. The argument goes that the PR "it is all about the kids" is an obvious lie, and that what is really wanted is punishing the underclass for being underclass. Under this argument those who make the laws have no interest in successfully working the problem that they claim to be working on, which explains why so little effort has been put into understanding the problem before law is written and people are punished.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

roger wrote:

Maybe jail time is seen as a deterrent to others.


That is meaningless, as the perception might just as easily be fantasy as fact. Do you have any science?


Science? What on earth are you talking about? Is incarceration a deterrent? I like your use of the word perception, though. Now, if you would only apply it.
ZarathustraReborn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:46 pm
The other problem is the statistic I reported: A 2009 study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy think tank in Washington, D.C., found that only half of the child support debtors in California prisons had reported income in the two preceding years. And the median net income of the others was a mere $2,881.

So this brokers the question, even IF we WERE to make those dad's pay their child support, what? Where is the money? You're telling me that these guys who either don't make anything, or have a median income of $3,000, they are going to be able to make a difference in the woman's financial affairs? Get real. It's not going to make the difference between those kids starving and them having dinner. It most certainly won't take them off public welfare.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:53 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Is incarceration a deterrent?

Sometimes. What I want to know though is does the threat of jail and then the subsequent carrying through with that threat help kids?? I also want to know if we get a good return on our investment when we jail deadbeat dads. This should be pretty easy to study and get an answer, so why do I not see any studies at all that claim that deadbeat dad jailings helps kids?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
It surely doesn't help the kids of anyone in prison. It might help the children of someone who is thinking about evading payments. I've no idea how you would quantify something so speculative.

I might ask if there is any value to any court order that can't, or won't be enforced. Are they just suggestions?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Apr, 2015 05:58 pm
@ZarathustraReborn,
Quote:
So this brokers the question, even IF we WERE to make those dad's pay their child support, what? Where is the money? You're telling me that these guys who either don't make anything, or have a median income of $3,000, they are going to be able to make a difference in the woman's financial affairs? Get real. It's not going to make the difference between those kids starving and them having dinner. It most certainly won't take them off public welfare.


We can tell a guy " get off your ass and take the best job you can" which may very well be 20 hours a week at Walmart, so that the state can take 30% (or what ever it is) of his check for child support, but the guy is not going to be better off than he is coach hoping or on the streets, and that little bit of money is not going to change his kids life any. In a society that increasingly has an underclass that has no ability to get a living wage job, and a society that has no where near enough jobs for everyone with the situation getting worse fast, these deadbeat dad laws seem to be grounded in fantasy.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/01/2020 at 09:05:53