Deadbeats will pay to keep driving

Oatka

New member
A better title would be "Do as we tell you or else".

At first blush, this looks WAY off topic, but, it is a great item pointing out how the power to license can be abused.

Right now, they're dealing with the noble cause of tracking down deadbeat dads, but
whose turn in the barrel will it be next time?

This whole approach stinks anyway. You should lose a driver's license because you can't handle a vehicle, etc., not because you didn't send an alimony check.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-20007522546.htm

Deadbeats will pay to keep driving

By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

When Congress reformed welfare in 1996, state child-support officials were told they could start yanking the driver's, professional and sporting licenses of deadbeat parents.

Four years later, a state-by-state review by The Washington Times shows that licenses have become a major money magnet:

• More than 300,000 parents in 42 states have had their driver's licenses suspended for nonpayment of child support. The parents paid at least $300 million to get their licenses back, with some of the biggest sums coming from parents in Maryland and Virginia.
• Hundreds of parents in at least 26 states, including four nurses in South Carolina, a beautician in Mississippi and 35 worm-diggers in Maine, have had their professional licenses clipped until they paid up. Ohio said it got $635,000 from 114 parents who couldn't afford to lose their work permits.

Results like these have made license revocation the new best friend of child-support officials.

"My staff loves driver's license sanctions. It gets to people," said Nancy Thoma, chief of the Iowa Bureau of Collections, which has suspended 772 parents' driver's licenses to date.

Still, the Great License Roundup isn't happening in every state or in every venue Congress envisioned.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have little or nothing to report about license revocation.

The District doesn't revoke any licenses, said an official with the city's Corporation Counsel.

Wisconsin hasn't taken any licenses either but will in the fall when its computers come on line, said a state spokeswoman.

In six states where license revocation is languishing, only judges can take licenses, and they aren't inclined to do so, say child-support officials, some with great frustration in their voices.

Meanwhile, there's one kind of license that is ubiquitous but untouchable by most child-support agencies: fishing licenses.

Less than a dozen states troll for deadbeats, The Times' survey found. The problem is computers, child-support directors say.

Like most states, "we issue licenses from a cigar box in the back of the bait shop," explained Nathaniel L. Young Jr., director of child support in Virginia, one of 39 states that doesn't squeeze the fishermen.
Without expensive computers to match anglers and obligors, he added, "there's virtually no way to track that license."

Licenses as leverage
The 1996 welfare law made license revocation the law of the land for two main reasons.
One, it gave child-support agencies more leverage in their quest for collections.

Secondly, the constant threat of revocation was envisioned as a way to ensure steady child-support payments. This money, Congress reasoned, is going to be needed by families that use up their five years of welfare benefits.

According to the latest data from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), 19 million families are involved in government child-support programs. Half of these families are on welfare.

In 1997, child-support agencies collected a record $13.4 billion on behalf of custodial parents and children. However, this money wasn't even a quarter of the $62.2 billion that the government estimates was owed that year.

Wage withholding is the most popular way of obtaining child support — 56 percent of 1997 collections were deducted from parents' paychecks, OCSE data said.

But license revocation has emerged as an effective tool to reach parents who are self-employed or otherwise unreachable through wage withholding, child-support directors said.

Driving for dollars
From coast to coast, the favorite license to lift is the driver's license.

Florida, which has a "Pay Up or Walk" campaign, has taken 50,000 licenses over the past two years, said Dave Bruns, spokesman for Florida Department of Revenue.

"It's a magic wand," especially for truck drivers, because "it produces results when other tools won't," he said.

In 1997, Hawaii did a similar "pay or walk" campaign, said Bob Norton of the Hawaii Child Support Enforcement Agency.
In December, the month before the first licenses were to be pulled, "we had our largest increase in arrearage payments in history," he said gleefully. "So it does work."

Even sparsely populated Idaho has suspended more than 2,500 driver's licenses.
"People come scrambling in to pay," said Bill Walker, a spokesman for Idaho's child-support office.

Meanwhile, in highly populated New York, "hundreds of thousands" of parents have received warning letters and "at any given time, 60,000 driver's-license suspensions are in effect," said Robert Doar, director of New York's child-support agency.

Mr. Doar added that New York's streamlined, agency-run license-suspension process is "enormously effective" and contributed "a good portion" toward the state's $1 billion in collections since 1995.

Deadbeats in Maryland and Virginia are also at considerable risk for loss of their driver's licenses.

Since 1996, Maryland state officials have threatened to take 257,740 driver's licenses and suspended 73,472 of them. These efforts have brought in nearly $153 million in collections and payment plans, said Teresa Kaiser, head of the Maryland Child Support Enforcement Administration.

Virginia has taken fewer licenses — 2,824 since 1995 — but the threat of taking them, plus the state's highly publicized "booting" program, which disables cars owned by deadbeats, has brought in more than $65 million, said Mr. Young, Virginia's director.
Revoking other kinds of work-related licenses has proved effective as well.

For instance, no-nonsense Maine has pulled the licenses of 486 professionals, including two lawyers, three auto dealers, three insurance agents, three veterinarians and 35 worm-diggers.

In North Carolina, 600 deadbeat professionals have received a letter saying "you've got 20 days to respond to this issue and prove to us that you have eliminated this problem, or your license is revoked," said Barry Miller, director of the North Carolina Child Support Enforcement Program.

"Bam," he said. "We got in excess of $500,000 in payments . . . that's about $800 a pop."

South Carolina, which has already nabbed the licenses of 12 barbers, one teacher, four registered nurses and three Realtors, "takes away all kinds of licenses including manufactured housing, which is a very large industry in this state," said Marilyn Mathews, a spokeswoman for the state.

"There is only one profession in the state whose license we don't revoke and that is attorneys. Isn't that interesting?" she said.
Locally, Virginia currently takes professional licenses, while Maryland is one of five states that is phasing in this process this year.

However, these and 38 other states are devoting far less energy to the nation's 42 million sports fishermen and 15 million hunters, despite the congressional mandate to take their licenses.

Fishing for deadbeats
According to The Times' review, 10 states have taken a total of 630 fishing licenses since 1996. An 11th state, New Mexico, has 771 licenses under review.

Arkansas hasn't taken any fishing licenses yet, but has 3,800 in its newly automated license-revocation pipeline, said Dan McDonald, head of Arkansas' child-support agency.

Such meager tallies of fishing-license revocations don't surprise parents like Jennie Marshall-Hoenack of Anchorage, Alaska.
Mrs. Marshall-Hoenack's former husband is "an avid sports fisherman," but Alaska officials never pulled his license, she told The Times. "As of March 1, he owed $65,609 in child support," she added.

Lack of automation prevents recreational-license revocation, child-support officials in half the states told The Times.

A few states have gamely tried to organize the paperwork anyway.

For instance, in Delaware, where nearly 25,000 fishing licenses are kept on card files, "our staff went down and alphabetized all of them by hand," said Charles Hayward, deputy director of Delaware's child-support agency.

The plan is to start matching anglers and obligors in July, he said.

"But it's not been an easy process. Thank God, we're not a New York — we'd never get it done."

Mr. Doar of New York, where more than 1 million fishing licenses were sold in 1998, seconds that sentiment.

Without computers, he and a chorus of other child-support officials said, it's just not cost-effective.

"Hunting and fishing license revocation was required by Congress so of course we require it as well," said Dan Richard, director of Pennsylvania's child-support agency.

"But we have not found that it actually produces dollars. It revokes the license, and that's the end of the trail," he said, adding that he knew of one hunting-license revocation.

Still, some child-support promoters say state agencies should not give up on recreational licenses.

"It's another tool. You never know what tool will work with what individual. You need different tools for different people," said Nora O'Brien, who works with the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support (ACES) in California.

"The benefit of suspending a fishing license is that it should have the intended effect of getting a non-custodial parent's attention and motivating payment, but it doesn't hurt their ability to work," said Kevin Aquirre, director of child-support in Oregon, a state that is just starting to take recreational licenses.

Child-support officials don't actually want to take the licenses, Mr. Aquirre said, echoing dozens of other directors.
"The whole idea is to motivate and compel payment."

Fishing "is a huge passion" and taking the licenses would be effective, insists Debbie Kline, an ACES leader in Ohio.

"Bass fishermen live, breathe, eat and sleep fishing," she said, noting that her ex-husband even fished in blizzards.

S. Ray Weaver, Oklahoma's top child-support official, agrees that his people "really get a reaction here" when they revoke lifetime fishing and hunting licenses.

"People feel they are entitled to that [license] even if they aren't paying their child support," he said. "When we take it, they feel like we've destroyed their world."
Maine child-support director Stephen Hussey is another satisfied supporter of recreational-license revocation.

Maine recently went after 225 moose hunters for child support and all but three paid up, he said. "One guy came in with a check for over $7,000 and said 'I've been waiting all my life for this moose permit. Here's your check.' "




------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Forgive me for seeing the humor in this:
"...35 worm-diggers in Maine, have had their professional licenses clipped..."

In addition, Washington, DC?
If they began revoking licenses there, they'd likely never sell a gallon of gasoline!

All in all, I think the 'deadbeats' should be targeted in some way or another, but they have to be able to work in order to earn.

Please allow me to tell a story.

A man once worked for me that got sued for back support. The court ordered us to garnish his wages - for a total of about $20,000.00. Now this was NOT a high paying job. We deducted $12.50 per week for CURRENT money due, and $2.50 for PAST due monies.
I figured out that he would be paid up at the ripe old age of about 227 years old, then he could start making plans for his own future.
 
I have to agree with Mountain Gun on this one. Driving is a priviledge. There are an incredible number of guys out there who don't seem to feel any responsibility to contributing towards the welfare of the child they helped make. Prior to this law passing, I knew of one woman who had fought for the better part of 10 years for the guy to make ANY payments. The licenses are not being pulled for missing a single payment. We're talking chronic non-payment, which means the guy is a prick and needs to lose the license anyway.
 
Sorry - I can't agree. Granted that a driver's license is a privilege -- which is the major point.

I stand my my earlier statement, "You should lose a driver's license because you can't handle a vehicle, etc., not because you didn't send an alimony check."

Pushing the envelope, the license could be yanked for not voting or some other public good.

If gun ownership is licensed, should that license be pulled because you're a louse?
The rub then becomes, the people who determine the degree of "lousiness" can disarm you for whatever reason.
 
They quote the Oklahoma official pulling lifetime licenses as saying that people feel like they're entitled to licenses even if they haven't paid their child support.

Well, they are! They paid for the licenses. Why doesn't the state refund the unused portion of the license fee to the custodial spouse if they're so concerned?
 
OK, someone explain to me the link between child support and driver's licenses.

That's right, bunky: there isn't one.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coinneach:
OK, someone explain to me the link between child support and driver's licenses.

That's right, bunky: there isn't one.
[/quote]

It's a "hook" . Parents tell kids to pass their classes or they are "grounded" , the state needs to get these peoples attention and this is it . I wonder when someone will apply for welfare because they can't get to work so they were fired and can't pay any support . Also can't look for work without their license . Someone needs to make a poster child out of this .



------------------
TOM
SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
 
Well this started before with laws that suspend a person's driver's licence for underage drinking, not DUI, merely drinking if under 21. This of course is irrelivant to the opperation of a motor vehicle.
 
Anybody got a better idea on how to get these low-life, egg-sucking, sorry excuses for adults to cough up the money that their children are entitled to?

LawDog
 
Enforce the existing laws, come on LawDog, no offense, but that should not be such an abstract concept to come up with.
 
Court orders payment of support. Failure to pay as ordered is contempt of court. Nuf said.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
The deadbeat-dad enforcement issues have
little to do with deadbeat-dad problem and
have EVERYTHING to do with expanding the
power of government over the population.

Everything.


Anything that expands the governments power is wrong.
 
Just so you know, I have been paying my child support faithfully since the divorce. That still didn't stop my ex wife from contacting my company commander, and Battallion Commander saying I wasn't paying. This happened for several pay periods, and ended up in investigations each time. Each time I proved the allotment (automatic deduction sent to the court), was being paid for the correct ammount. This caused my military career no small amount of damage. After my military career was effectively over (due to a training accident), she made a claim to get welfare. The attorney General was contacted because she said (falsely) that I hadn't been paying when all along I was still paying through the court. The attorney Generals office garnished my wages, and didn't even serve me a writ of Garnishment or any other DUE PROCESS. Nope, they are exempt from the Bill of Rights. These laws make them exempt. It took 8 months, and a couple of thousand dollars to stop the garnishment (Plus a personal conversation and action with Governor Bush). They refused to give me the money back, and said I'd have to sue my unemployed, welfare cheat of an ex wife to get the overpayments back. Yeah right. Where is she going to get the money?
LAWDOG: When I asked the AG's office to prosecute for EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT BY DECEPTION (look it up in your copy of the Penal Code under Fraud), they told me that they didn't pursue these things. I tried to get the HARRIS COUNTY DA to prosecute for the same, or fraud (Federal and state), and they said they didn't have time.
When she stole my Credit Card number, and maxed out a charge card with Sears, the Harris County Sheriffs Dept. said that it was a "civil" matter, and they wouldn't prosecute for theft. Even though I showed them a divorce decree showing that we were no longer related through blood or marriage, they still said it was a "criminal matter arising from a civil matter" and still refused to act on the blatent Fraud and Theft.
These "deadbeat dad" laws sound great, but the problem is that there isn't any recourse for a guy who is wronged by this. The courts don't do anything to a sorry mother who lies, steals, and otherwise breaks the law with impunity. Let me be 3 days late, and there are a host of private and public agencies waiting to put me in jail, take my house, revoke my liscense to drive, work, hunt, fish, and ruin my credit.
Oh, and did I mention that in addition to all of this, I haven't been allowed my court ordered visitation of my children for over a year and a half? While the courts will hold my ex in contempt, they do not fine her because she is poor (supposedly), and they do not jail her because she is a "single mother" (who would take care of the children?). There has been somthing screwy about the whole thing.
I was ordered jailed for 30 days because I was held in contempt after losing my job (due to disability) and being ten days late on my CS payment because of it. It didn't matter that the Veterans Administration had doctors who signed an affidavit saying I was incapable physically of doing said job. All that mattered was that I was ordered to pay, and I missed a payment. You see, she can break the law with impunity, and when I have actual mitigating circumstances, they are overlooked. She has free legal representation, I do not.
Things have become so bad, that my infant son has had to go without because we are spending all our time and money (most of it borrowed) fighting in court. My present wife and I are considering a divorce and cohabitation just so my son will recieve SOME recognition by the court, and will be granted rights too.
Just because you are a cop, doesn't mean you know everything about the law. These laws SUCK. The only law we need is the law this nation was founded with. The Constitution is subverted when new laws are passed. We have a system of COMMON LAW to handle other "lessor" problems. If a guy really isn't paying, then a woman can always sue in court using her rights under common law.
Why is it so hard to understand that each new law passed whatever the intent, is either redundant, or restricts people's freedom. We don't need more laws, we need to repeal the laws we've got, and inforce just a few laws that make sense, not the ones that "feel good". I am not alone in this. There are many thousands of fathers getting screwed every day because of new laws. I guess you probably didn't know that my ex can withhold visitation from me and feel free of any real consequence. I am not so priveledged.

Sorry for the Rant. The family court system and Texas Family Code have been so poorly written as to utterly destroy my family from the inside out. It has cost me tens of thousands of dollars defending myself, and when it is found that I am innocent, I have absolutely no recourse to claim the lost monies. I have no pitty for the "poor single mother" because for every one of them, there is a guy working his ass off and maybe still can't keep up with the payments. How about laws protecting the "Dead Broke" dad or the "Beat Dead Dad"?
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Enforce the existing laws, come on LawDog, no offense, but that should not be such an abstract concept to come up with.[/quote]

Ah, I must have missed the section of the Academy covering the 'existing laws'.

Probably due to the fact that child support is covered by Civil Law, not Criminal Law, thus the police have no enforcement measures.

If the 'existing laws' worked, would there be any need for the controversial license yanking to be considered? Anyone got an idea how much money is owed in child support under the 'existing laws'? On the order of hundreds of millions, isn't it?

I'm not saying that yanking a guys license to remind him that he owes support to the children of his body is a good idea. Matter-of-fact, I think it's a damn dumb idea.

I am wondering what sort of enforcement measures the members of The Firing Line would suggest.

LawDog

[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 08, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Just because you are a cop, doesn't mean you know everything about the law.[/quote]

KJM, breathe.

I do not, have not, and never will, claim to "know everything about the law", let's get that one straight right now.

In my personal experience and, lest there be any misunderstanding, this is only my personal experience, for every man in your straits, there are a handful of single and/or divorced mothers going through the same thing you are.

Is what's happening to you right? No.

Did I in any way, shape or form state that it was right? No.

What I did do, was float the question, "Anyone got a better idea on how to..." so on and so forth, expecting to start a debate on how to collect monies owed.

LawDog
 
Here's my idea: Lets go back to the simpler time when the law of the land was Common Law. If a guy owes money, you get a judgement. Then if he doesn't pay, you place a lien on everything he owns until he pays. If he doesn't own anything because he too is in poverty, then you reexamine his support obligation, and place it within the state guidelines.
Common Law was such a blessing to our country. We have all but forgotten how great and all-encompassing it was. My next piece of advice is don't go make babies with a guy you think has such low character that he will later refuse to owe up to his responsibilities. My day is comming. The Texas Legislature will finally hear a proposal to link Child Support with visitation. This is long overdue. If my ex decides to deny me visitation, then she just recieves a much lighter check at the end of the month (or if it is a typical month, no check at all). Some people place money far ahead of their childrens best interests. I only have to wait 1.5 years until the legislature is in session again.
 
Why do all of these efforts concentrate on the father? I have paid child support since 1992 in an amount far in excess of what my ex spends on my child. For years she held no employment at all, as she has a good deal of family wealth. Support amounts are based on income not wealth held. She has children from a prior marriage as well. She is not considered a "deadbeat."

What should be done is recognize that both parents bear an equal responsibility to support their children. Women have no financial reason not to divorce a man, since the man is generally forced to pay for everything, even her attorney fees. Women and their divorce lawyers are like vultures when they get together. My wife went to a lawyer and sued me to triple my child support, telling me she was going to screw me out of every dollar she could. Hired a lawyer who beat her lawyer's ass in court. She had the nerve to tell me I should be happy since I won; she had to pay her lawyer and lost.

Child support is the only debt for which the state allows imprisonment. It's bull. KJM--good luck.

Ledbetter
 
Back
Top