"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/...btors-prisons/

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_159775.asp
Woman Asks Some Sensible Questions about Child Support Debtors’ Prisons
Saturday, October 10, 2009
By Robert Franklin, Esq.
I was riding in a car with a couple of old friends the other day. They're
both educated and smart. One of them is a woman with whom I attended law
school. At one point she opened a topic of conversation with the words "I
know we don't have debtors' prisons anymore..." which prompted me to
interrupt and, in no uncertain terms, point out to her that we do in fact
have debtors' prisons for one crime only - non-payment of child support.

I could be mistaken, but I believe they also have debtors' prison for the
crime of tax evasion.

As I said, she's a smart person; she reads newspapers, etc., but was still
able to hold the opinion that we've abolished debtor's prisons. It's
interesting how difficult it is for people, even smart, informed ones, to
notice when facts contradict previously held opinions.

Anyway, here's a letter that makes some simple basic points about our
current day debtors' prisons (The Chattanoogan, 9/28/09). It reminds us
of what many people, my friend included, learned in school - that one of
the reasons debtors' prisons were abolished was that debtors can't make
good on what they owe when they can't earn a living.

The writer doesn't seem to know about some rather arcane facts, like that
63% of child support debtors report under $10,000 in earnings per year, or
that even the Office of Child Support Enforcement admits that family court
judges routinely order support levels that the non-custodial parent can't
pay.

What she does know, however, is that her next door neighbor is a good
father who does a lot for his daughter and obviously cares deeply for her.
She knows he lost his job, genuinely can't pay what he owes, won't be able
to until he's re-employed and won't find a job sitting in jail. More
importantly, she knows that every day he's in jail is a day his daughter
isn't with him.

And that's the unspoken farce of debtors' prison for child support
obligors - we care so much about the wellbeing of children that we take
their fathers from them and put them in prison. That's sensible only if
you believe that fathers have nothing to offer children except money. And
that, come to think of it, is a pretty fair description of public policy
with regard to fathers and children.

There are probably parents out there with plenty of money to pay child
support who just refuse to. According to Sanford Braver's reliable
analysis, there aren't many, but there are probably some. I don't mind
putting them in jail. If all that's standing between a child and support
is someone's signature, which that someone refuses to give, I say the
slammer is a good place for him/her until the wisdom of paying arrives.

Excellent example of the word "wisdom" being employed in a foolish
statement.


But those parents aren't common. What we do now - incarcerating parents
who can't pay - is more about our mindless outrage at fathers than about
supporting children. The argument against debtors' prisons is the same as
it's always been - they don't help and they in fact do harm, as the letter
linked to clearly shows.

The sensible approach to all of this is equally shared parenting in which
parents have equal time with children and share the expenses of childcare
equally.

NOT sensible since "equal" expense sharing is precisely what lead to the
current system. How about each parent care for the child as they deem fit;
just as mothers get to do. Gee, what a novel concept.........

But until we get there, family courts must (a) start establishing support
orders that parents can actually pay, (b) start enforcing visitation
orders (that's the main cause of refusal to pay), and (c) establish
summary procedures for child support modification that reflect changed
circumstances.

Oh, and (d) only send people to prison who can pay but don't.

How about keeping the government people OUT of it!


[Dusty - (d) only send people to prison who can pay but don't - only after
proving it with hard evidence, not just someone's gut feeling or say-so.]

They shouldn't send ANYONE to prison! Whether or not they have the ability
to pay is irrelevant since "child support" is an artificial debt in the
first place......