HRHMom

If paternity was contested there would have been a paternity test (here it is at state expense unless your are proven to be dad, then you have to reimburse the state, about $140) before a child support obligation was imposed.

And child support is calculated based upon very stringent and rigid formulae based upon one's proven income, so there is a basis in reality for all this.

I am not saying that there are never mistakes, and I would certainly agree that the enforcement agencies are hard to deal with, but if one meets one's obligations, it doesn't become an issue.

The mistakes generally happen in the other direction - the children (and whomever is supporting them, whether the other parent or the government) are the ones who suffer financially almost always.

etch5895

I assume it would depend on how each state catagorizes failure to provide support for your child. Not being a lawyer, I couldn't tell you if it is a criminal offense or not. I'm pretty sure that attempting to evade child support payments is considered a criminal offense as opposed to a civil one.

Why is it a privlege? To me, it represents a freedom to leave the country and do as you will. To others, it is the key to an overseas job. Should people who have outstanding legal obligations be allowed to run away from their lives? To me, the answer should be no. Obviously, if someone has a job outside the US and convinces a judge that they will be able to pay based on their overseas employment, that judge would probably allow them to get a passport (instead of staying in the US and defaulting on their payments).

fairviewroad

A drivers license is a document that (theoretically) indicates that you have demonstrated the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

A passport is a document that indicates that you have demonstrated that you are who you say you are.

There's a difference, see? The first demonstrates ability. The second demonstrates existence.

Driving is indeed a privilege. When your legal existence becomes a privilege granted by the government, we are in a heap of trouble. I know you could make the argument that this has already happened, but this news is another step on a very slippery slope.

And no, I'm not a black helicopter nut. Helicopters are no longer a neccessary tool in the government's fight to insert itself into every facet of our lives.

Global_Hi_Flyer

The thing that troubles me about revoking professional licenses or driver licenses is that it impedes or eliminates the ability of a person to work Or at least work at the same levels of income that they might otherwise have.

That, in turn, means there is less money to pay back the child support, and essentially assures that both the parent and child will be in poverty.

I have no sympathy for folks that don't pay their debts, but taking away their ability to make money and pay those debts really doesn't solve the problem.

tom911

I've seen a lot of folks with suspended licenses that read "suspended except in course of employment", and it jumps right out of the computer so you can't miss it. Imagine you have to ask the judge for that as part of sentencing. Don't know how that would work with child support suspensions, though. I don't know enough about how that program works (do these folks, for instance, even see a judge or commissioner?).

PresRDC

I know its hard for some people to understand, but there are things in this world more important than children.

We've created a system where any abuse is tolerated as long as it is done in the interest of children. It has to stop. Children are just little people. Nothing more, nothing less.

The judgments in these child support cases may be final, but the process by which they are rendered often sucks. I don't need my State Department getting involved in law enforcement.

HRHMom

Except that they have had the ability all along to earn that money, and have been earning money, and have chosen not to pay their debts, and now all they have to do to retain that earning ability is pay what is past due already.

In drivers' license cases, all they have to do is make a nominal payment and sign a payment plan - which then they break as soon as they get the license back! And the cycle starts all over again.

essxjay

This completely defeats the state's purpose then. I'm amazed that someone with a professional license fails to see the implications of denying one's ability (and liberty) to engage in their occupation.

Rules, such as those hypothesized by the OP, disconnected from principles serve neither the individuals they're intended to benefit nor the social structure and institutions of a civil world.

Kiwi Flyer

I'm against this kind of thing on principal. Not on moral grounds.

It is too easy to have a data error that incorrectly flags someone as owing money. The would be traveller is in a vulnerable position - how can they prove the debt is not theirs in a short enough time to allow the travel to take place as planned (or with minimal inconvenience)? In this situation, if you really need to travel the easiest out is to pay the debt even though it isn't yours, which then is treated as an admission of guilt/responsibility.

How do I know this? I've been caught in this situation (not over child support but another debt).

Occupationalhazard

Why should the government "allow" someone to have [freedom of speech/gainful employment/whatever] if they are behind on their [child support/parking tickets/don't want to take their shoes of for the TSA]?

And what, exactly, is the federal gov't doing involved in family court issues, which are a state matter?

At some point, it simply becomes Kafka-esque.

O/H

essxjay

Oops. I posted the above before getting to this:

We've had a RBP about this thread as duplicating one over in Newsstand. I'll leave it here for now even though it's not directly germane to travel security.

--------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

PaulKarl

I strongly disagree with your assertion that passports are a privilege and not a fundamental right, and I brought along some appellate judges as character witnesses.

In 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court held that international travel was a Constitutional right. "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

"Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values," Douglas continued.

Thus, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles could not refuse to issue a passport to Rockwell Kent on the grounds that Kent refused to aver under oath that he was not and had never been a member of the Communist Party. The refusal, on grounds not authorized by Congress, was outside Dulles' discretion.

Eight years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which then covered most of the Deep South) held that "the right to foreign travel may not be arbitrarily or unreasonably restrained" by the State Department. Worthy v. United States, 328 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1964). The Court also clarified that Congress' power to enact passport-related legislation came under its foreign affairs authority.

I am not arguing that the Passport Denial Program is unconstitutional (although it is incredibly wrong-headed). There's tough language in Kent, in which the Supreme Court recognizes a long-standing power of the Secretary of State to deny passports to people "trying to escape the toils of the law."

But I am saying that U.S. citizens have a right -- not a mere privilege -- to be issued a U.S. passport. Like all rights, it is not absolute, and it is subject to reasonable regulation, but it is most assuredly a Constitutional right.

Superguy

I would agree.

I think a judge would have to sign off on this.

If someone's needs a passport abroad and can't get one because of child support, that's a problem. Give them the passport, and arrest them when they come back, serve them with papers, or whatever.

I think largely what this comes down to is that child support, etc, are largely state issues and should be handled in state courts. The federal government should stay out of it barring a court order (ie judge says no passport).

There are appropriate penalties for being a deadbeat dad. Revoking/not renewing passports, licenses, etc isn't one of them.

Super

Loren Pechtel

The problem is that it can be totally unfair at times.

You have a decent income, you're going along making your payments fine but you made one big mistake--you're in the reserve.

You get called up to Iraq, your ex manages to delay the child support hearing until after your report date. Your income suddenly drops considerably but because of the delayed hearing your support payments don't drop at all.

You serve your term, you come back. Your savings weren't enough. You're now probably spending the rest of your life as a deadbeat even though the only wrongful action was your ex's.

Loren Pechtel

Or they can't appeal because the system is too messed up.

I know one deadbeat. The whole thing was rigged from before the divorce. The judge awarded her everything and child support he couldn't afford, either (the judge based it on a good job he had given up at her desire to relocate--really her desire to bring it before a judge that was a friend of her family.) Since she got everything he had nothing with which to appeal.