this man would have unless we see otherwise.

The blame is an economy and oligarchical infrastructure, starting with Reagan tax cuts, that make it impossible for a man to support his family

But it doesn't make sense to me to put them in jail which results in even more being owed. Why can't they take it out of the paycheck, tax refunds and other options? The one thing I always thought was why the city doesn't hire them for extra jobs like cleaning a park or something like that. Cities should work with parents to get control of what they owe.

If they don't have a job, they can work some sort of community service, and have their pay directly given to the child/children. Even if they have a job, and are able (depending on circumstances), they can earn extra doing community service.

They can earn their way back to a zero balance, and keep out of jail.

If they do not have a w-2 job, like if they are contractors on a 1099-B or schedule C small businesses, then they cannot take the child support from wages. Same for tax refunds. No tax refund (1099 and Schedule C are much more likely to OWE taxes than get a refund) means no way to seize.

The biggest problem I see is a two part problem.

1) child support orders do not stop when you lose your job or income automatically. You have to petition for a modification and the modification is not retroactive. In my state at least the courts do not have the power to modify child support back farther than the day you filed for modification. Thus, if you owe 1000 per month, lose your job, and stop paying, then don't file a modification for 12 months, your child support can be reduced going forward from the time you filed, just not those 1st 12 months (or 12,000)

2) assessed income. This is a 'problem' created by trying to solve another 'problem' voluntary impoverishment. Because some people are so spiteful they would quit their jobs/high paying jobs just to make sure the Ex does not get 'their' money, the courts can assess your income at higher than it really is. in practice this means that even with people that have no job, they are assessed with having at minimum a job paying 40 hours a week at minimum wage. In my state that would equal a base child support for one child of just under $400 per month. So, even if you can prove you have no income, in MD you would likely have a $400 per month child support obligation.

If you bring children into the world, you have an obligation - support them. Now I await the barrage of a shitstorm. Are you saying that a person should have as many children as he/she can without any obligations toward them?

I just wonder how a state can expect to make any income from a person sitting in a cell and - yes - those "modifications" are criminal and disgusting ways to milk a bad situation into an horrific situation.

Jail them, no. As you point out, "I just wonder how a state can expect to make any income sitting in a cell". What's the point of jailing them? More $$ for the private prison industry?

Some pay because they know it's their child
Some others pay only because they don't want to sit in a cell

We need the threat of jail same as not paying your taxes

A friend's ex quit his job a few months after he left her for another woman. Then didn't get one for over a year until two months after the divorce was final. She received a total of $120 child support while separated. The only reason he got a job at all is because he knows he'll to go to jail eventually if he doesn't pay.

BTW, he recently quit his job to pursue professional disk golf. I think his girlfriend is paying the child support for now.

state and he moved back. They went after him years later. He got a lawyer and asked to pay only $5 a month for our disabled daughter. The state knew where I was and asked me for help. I wrote a letter to the court detailing the hands on care that our daughter had needed for at least 40 years and how much I would have gotten paid if I was not her mother. Needless to say he paid up.

but that is not how it works in most states.

. . . So far, we don't know the exact reason why Mr. Scott fell behind in his payments. Maybe, at some point, he was laid off. Something like that can cause unmet obligations to snowball.. Maybe at some point or another, he or a family member was seriously ill, and there were expenses to meet. Or maybe when he had his children, he had a job that he thought could support them, but later could only find lesser paying jobs. There are countless reasons or circumstances that could have arisen in the man's life that may have put him in the position he found himself. The point is, none of us really knows enough about the man's life to simply make an assumption that he was just another deadbeat Dad irresponsibly siring children.

And if we are going to be perfectly honest, there are probably millions of working-class and lower-middle class couples who have children before they are truly 100% on their feet financially speaking. Many of those families, by luck or happenstance, manage to scrape by long enough to get on better financial footing. Life happens, and people have to make the best of whatever shit the universe throws their way. And often times, those who are quickest to judge another's "lack of planning" or "lack of personal responsibility" are the same people who fail to realize just how fortunate they themselves have been.

It just absolutely makes no sense that a parent who owes money for child support, that putting them in jail will A) make them pay, B) allow them to earn income to pay!

I never understood that.

It was designed to make the next guy pay and for the most part it works.

You are always going to have scum bags( male and female) that refuse to pay

Taxes ,some fines imposed by the state or federal government and child support are the only debt
that faces imprisonment if not paid.

As I said for the most part it works out well for a civilized society if threat of jail
is in place to support the children you decided to have or to pay the money you owe
to the state or federal government .

Surveys regarding child support payment and jail reveal that it's inefficient - and it's primarily directed against the poor.

Failure to pay taxes is another animal entirely, and I have no evidence, nor did you provide any, that jail results in compliance.

and little chance once having gone through the legal system.

Long story short, the guys owes $800 a month in child support. Had his driver's license suspended for not being able to pay child support. Drove anyway for work. Pulled over. Arrested. X3. Last one was a felony.

Can't drive. Can't work. Can't pay for a lawyer.

Owes 30k+

Judge sprung him. He can't pay. He will go back in in the next month or two. He won't have a lawyer. His ex does, free from the state. And they have guns.

She was there for a couple of weeks. The really bad thing is that it is for her sons who are now in their 20s and her ex never even pushed it.

or she wouldn't have been in jail.

I took my 5 and 8 year old and moved back in the late '80s after their mother thought more about cocaine than us and never asked for a cent,just to be left alone.So no child support for me and no possibility of jail for her not paying.

Some states will go after the deadbeat parents to pay back welfare benefits that were necessary due to non-support.

But, she lost her job because of the arrest. As others here have noted, how do they expect the money if she's in jail and has trouble finding employment because of those arrests. I think wage garnishment would be more reasonable.

on my end.

setting up a collections program. Today it is the state that does the chasing no matter what the ex spouse wants done.

So now you can't get to work anymore and you lose your job.

And how are you supposed to pay that child support now if you lost your job and can't go any interviews?

That's how fucking stupid our politicians are in this country.

there's a whole industry built up around family courts, with shrinks and appointed guardians ad litem and so on. And the feds pay states for keeping this system rigged. Keeping "deadbeats" from catching up means more fines, more jail time, etc. Follow the dollar.

It's based on a percentage of their income. If they don't make much, they don't pay much. A guy can be rich and not pay or poor and not pay. It's not about poverty. You know their refusing to pay makes their children and mothers even poorer. Mothers with children are the poorest households in America, twice as poor as single fathers.

The guy didn't deserve to be killed, for sure, and it sounds like SCarolina has a bad system in place that doesn't even work. I, however, am not falling for some lament about men who are compelled to live up to responsibilities for bringing children into the world. If there aren't legal mechanisms, these guys will pay nothing, and then the children suffer.

I think that was his name. Tammy Duckworth won his seat. He wouldn't pay his child support, the asshole, and he was loaded.

Just sayin'.

My point is all kinds of guys mooch on child support. There are rich men who try not to pay and poor men who pay dutifully.

behind but putting him in jail would have only meant that the taxpayer would get to support him to. The states would all be way ahead to garner wages.

just out of prison.

I talk to each new hire, almost all Hispanic men. Almost every single one of them have child support payments they are hopelessly behind on. Almost all of them were never married.

To be clear, they were not in jail for child support. A lot of multiple drunk driving convictions.

Anyway, it's a pretty hopeless situation to be trying to get back on your feet, which in itself is a misnomer because many of these men never were on their feet, and being years behind on child support. It can be pretty emotional because many of these men sound so sincere that they really want to know how to do things the right way. They want to learn and know very little.

And there's these tens of thousands of dollars hanging over them.

They can't open a checking account because the state will sweep it out.

Child support and probation are very frustrating to them. Parole because they have to pay large amounts of money (to them) and take off from work for what they consider pointless probation meetings.

Be glad you have not been tossed into this justice system.

PS - none of them ever tell me they were innocent. They almost all tell me something like, I've made a lot of mistakes but I really want to do better.

and they have the murderer in jail, we'll see how it all plays out but the truth of the matter is the man was executed for the offense of running away. Nothing else should matter in a trial. The man, Scott, did not do anything to warrant the action taken by the murderer. The cop has his license, his car and still wants his life too. Throw the murderer in jail for a long time to give him plenty of time to think about what he did. Never again should he, the cop, be allowed to walk free again. A mans life was taken and he, the cop, did the taking, judge, jury and executioner all rolled up in one. Thats not how it works in a just world.