The Feds going after "Deadbeat Dads"...

Lost Cause

It's a wrap!
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
30,949
Do you think it's right to imprison delinquent father's? Instead of letting them work off the debt, they sit idle making nothing, then the dependents have to go on state support. Is this just, or is it the females using government to ruin the male's ability to be productive..ie.revenge? I'm really interested to see if there is a gender bias on this subject.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 — Federal agents in 29 states have arrested dozens of fathers who owe millions of dollars of child support, in a nationwide sweep that officials describe as a significant expansion of the federal role.

More notable than any one arrest, the officials say, is the message that the Bush administration is sending about its decision to pursue a more aggressive approach by using federal criminal prosecution against people who have repeatedly flouted state court orders.

Even though child support collections have increased in recent years, many parents still evade their obligations by moving from state to state and job to job. Surveys by the Census Bureau suggest that one-third of the parents entitled to child support under court orders or agreements are not receiving it.

In the last two weeks, federal agents, working with state and local law enforcement officers, have arrested 69 people on charges of not paying child support. Federal agents are hunting for 33 others named in indictments or criminal complaints. The defendants together owe more than $5 million, and the 69 already arrested account for $3.4 million of the total, the government said.

"This is just the beginning," said Matthew P. Kochanski, a criminal investigator at the Department of Health and Human Services. "You can expect to see many more regional and national efforts. We're ready to enforce this law in a coordinated way."

Federal officials said most of the defendants had not made payments in several years. Their individual arrears are $7,500 to $297,000.

"These arrests will have a ripple effect," said Sherri Z. Heller, commissioner of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. "We believe that other people who want to avoid this fate will come in and pay up."

All the defendants are fathers, though the government said that in a separate case, on Aug. 13 it arrested a woman who owed $86,000 for two daughters in Ohio, ages 11 and 12. The government said the woman was earning $100,000 a year as a doctor in the Northern Mariana Islands.

The crackdown, which included arrests in New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, has bipartisan support. It grows out of a small pilot program that began in a few states in the Clinton administration and was expanded by Tommy G. Thompson, the current secretary of health and human services.

"These parents have a demonstrated ability to meet their financial responsibilities to their children, but have consistently refused to provide the support they owe," Mr. Thompson said.

Janet Rehnquist, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, who coordinated the arrests, said the defendants included some of "the nation's most-wanted deadbeat parents."

Among those taken into custody, the government said, were an Oklahoma sheet metal worker who has not made child support payments in 16 years and owes $297,000; a Tennessee engineering company employee who has not made a payment in nine years and owes $264,000; and an Illinois man who has not paid more than $101,000 over the last five years even though he earned as much as $1.1 million one year as a professional football player.

The football player, James E. Harris, a former defensive end for the Oakland Raiders and the St. Louis Rams, owed child support for a son living in Pennsylvania, the government said.

A criminal information filed against the Oklahoma man, James A. Circle, says he earned more than $39,000 a year and had been ordered to pay $350 a week for a child in New Jersey. The indictment of the Tennessee man, Stanley A. Gagne, says he owes child support payments for a son and a daughter in Vermont.

Under federal law, a person who willfully does not pay a child support obligation of more than $10,000 for a child living in another state may be fined $250,000 and imprisoned up to two years. In addition, it is a felony to cross state lines to evade child support obligations of more than $5,000.

Tens of thousands of parents, mostly fathers, are so poor that they cannot pay child support. But officials said the people arrested in the last two weeks had enough income and assets to meet their obligations.

"These are deadbeat dads, but they are not dead broke," said Ben St. John, a spokesman for the inspector general.

Over the last decade, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives have united to toughen the law on child support for welfare recipients and more affluent parents. A parent's duty to support a child, they agree, is more serious than ordinary commercial debts.

The federal government granted itself jurisdiction over interstate child support cases in 1992, but federal prosecutors initially showed little interest. A first offense was only a misdemeanor until 1998, when Congress rewrote the law. United States attorneys have sporadically filed cases since then, securing 143 convictions last year and 98 this year.

"The recent arrests represent a new avenue of enforcement. There hasn't been a nationwide coordinated effort like this before," said Mr. Kochanski, the federal investigator. "We asked the states for the worst of the worst, the most egregious cases, in which they could not enforce child support orders."

Reached at a restaurant that he runs in San Diego, one of the defendants, Fariborz M. Monajami, said he was "very surprised to be arrested after all these years." He spent four days in jail and was released on Aug. 9 after posting a $10,000 bond.

His indictment, returned in Federal District Court in Fort Worth, says Mr. Monajami made no child support payments from 1990 to 1997. He owes more than $76,000 under a child support order issued in 1990.

Mr. Monajami said he had canceled checks showing that, beginning in 1997, he had paid a total of $25,000 to his son and daughter while they were in college.

Another one of those arrested, Dr. George M. Lewis, a psychiatrist in California, acknowledged, "I have an arrearage," but said he did not know the amount. The government says he owes $64,976.

Dr. Lewis said federal and state officials had conspired against him.

"The government tried to entrap me in a crime and undermine my ability to earn a living," he said. "That's the reason I'm behind in child support."


:D
 
I guess this needs some analysis.

First, lets assume that the government's assertions are correct; that these guys do have the means to pay and are indeed deadbeat parents in that they do owe support and willingly ignored it. Also, let's assume that it is proper for the government to be involved in such enforcement.

What will jailing them do? From what I have heard, if they payup they can avoid imprisonment. Hence either the threat of imprisonment or spending some time in prison results in many of them paying the amount they owe. If not, then they are punished and that punishment serves as a deterrent to others who would otherwise not live up to their obligations.

On an individual basis, does imprisonment make sense if the person refuses to pay? Maybe not, but I would assume that the government can also seize the person's assets in order to pay at least part of the obligations. I would guess that maybe in the overall scheme of things, considering the effect on other deadbeat parents, this might indeed make financial sense.
 
I think parents should have to pay. Looking at the guy that made $39K per year.

Total Income 39K
Child Payments 18K
Taxes 5K
Remainder 16K

The guy only had 16K a year left to live on..rent, food, and anything else. Can people live on that? Around here, you can't find a place to rent for less than $1,000 per month. That leaves him $76 per week for food, insurance, auto, gas, heating, electricity, etc. Is this possible?

Without living at a family member's house (like at Grandmas), it looks virtually impossible to support two separate households on $39K per year. If they owned a home outright the cost of living is less, but they'd have split it up during the divorce.

Hiring a lawyer (on both sides) to make sure things were "fair" would end up enriching the lawyers at the expense of the kids.

The wife had to be working because, if he wasn't paying, then she had to eat and feed her kids. I wonder how much she made? If she made something like $20K per year take home, then she'd be living on $38K take home and he'd be living on $16K take home.

Maybe people should stay together even if they hate each other so that they can provide for the kids until they reach 18. That doesn't seem to make sense either though.
 
LovetoGiveRoses said:
I think parents should have to pay. Looking at the guy that made $39K per year.

Total Income 39K
Child Payments 18K
Taxes 5K
Remainder 16K

The guy only had 16K a year left to live on..rent, food, and anything else. Can people live on that? Around here, you can't find a place to rent for less than $1,000 per month. That leaves him $76 per week for food, insurance, auto, gas, heating, electricity, etc. Is this possible?

Without living at a family member's house (like at Grandmas), it looks virtually impossible to support two separate households on $39K per year. If they owned a home outright the cost of living is less, but they'd have split it up during the divorce.

Hiring a lawyer (on both sides) to make sure things were "fair" would end up enriching the lawyers at the expense of the kids.

The wife had to be working because, if he wasn't paying, then she had to eat and feed her kids. I wonder how much she made? If she made something like $20K per year take home, then she'd be living on $38K take home and he'd be living on $16K take home.

Maybe people should stay together even if they hate each other so that they can provide for the kids until they reach 18. That doesn't seem to make sense either though.

Where I live, child support payments take the income of mommy and daddy into account.

I really hate it when people bitch about having to pay child support. If you are man or woman enough to fuck, you are man or woman enought to deal with the consequences of your actions.
 
LovetoGiveRoses said:
The guy only had 16K a year left to live on..rent, food, and anything else. Can people live on that? Around here, you can't find a place to rent for less than $1,000 per month. That leaves him $76 per week for food, insurance, auto, gas, heating, electricity, etc. Is this possible?
I live in a metro area that is not cheap, but I am living on my savings and unemployment. My total outflow is $1100-$1200 a month - so yeah, I think it is possible to live on $16k a year.

I paid about $500 a month in child support for almost 20 years (including while my daughter went to college). I also paid for all her medical care (which wasn't cheap - she had a number of operations, and some were not covered by insurance) which I would say came to at least $30k over the years. I also paid for ten years of private school, which started out at $100 per month and wound up being something like $250 a month towards the end. I also paid for her school clothing, various things like swimming lessons, field trips, summer camps, etc. - and finally, I paid for four years of college, her wedding and her honeymoon.

I did much of that while I was a starving student bringing in $464 per month on the GI bill (in short, I went into deep debt).

I have little sympathy for any parent who abandons their children financially.
 
Guess the deadbeat Dads took the slogan America- land of the free a bit too literally.
The UK has the "Child Support Agency" which does the same sort of thing, tracking down absentee fathers, with pretty limited success.
 
Among those taken into custody, the government said, were an Oklahoma sheet metal worker who has not made child support payments in 16 years and owes $297,000

Are they going to make him pay the whole $297K. Will they throw him in jail? Even if he does pay, then is wife gets $297K windfall when the kids are older. He becomes destitute and she becomes fairly wealthy. Maybe he deserves that for all those years of non-payment.
 
I don't think prison is the answer. It serves no purpose.

To have the child support taken from directly from their income before they see it....yes.

Could they have the deadbeats in a database that's linked to, let's say, the IRS so anyone paying taxes can be traced and collection made?

I would agree with seizing the property of anyone who tries to beat the system also.

All this presuming fairness in what is expected from the deadbeat parent. They shouldn't necessarily have to have a standard of living that is way below that of their children and the other parent just to get the payments made but the children's basics should be taken care of.

If they aren't, don't we end up taking care of them anyway?
 
weed said:
I don't think prison is the answer. It serves no purpose.
You don't think it serves as a deterrent. I have heard of a number of deadbeat parents who did manage to come up with the money when faced with prison - in that case then at least the threat of prison served a purpose.

Could they have the deadbeats in a database that's linked to, let's say, the IRS so anyone paying taxes can be traced and collection made?
I blieve there is such a system, but a lot of people can beat it by getting a different identity, getting paid in cash, etc.
 
Shy Tall Guy said:
You don't think it serves as a deterrent. I have heard of a number of deadbeat parents who did manage to come up with the money when faced with prison - in that case then at least the threat of prison served a purpose.

[/b]I blieve there is such a system, but a lot of people can beat it by getting a different identity, getting paid in cash, etc. [/B]

How about we croak 'em and sell thier internal organs for transplant. We can give the proceeds to the kids.

1) It provides some deterrence.

2) It is revenue generating

3) It is difficult to avoid simply by way of getting paid under the table.
 
Back
Top