Fredd

I have every sympathy for those people, mainly female, who find themselves in your position without your resources. After reading through the linked article and this thread I'm still feeling queasy about this program and the extent to which it appears as a state sanctioned ends-justify-the-means operation, complete with unintended consequences.

Cheers,
Fredd

GUWonder

There are also "deadbeat moms", but they don't get cursed out as often.

Suspending a professional license sounds like it could be a poor way to get someone to pay the child support due in full where it results in a large income hit, thus eroding someone's ability to pay.

Loren Pechtel

I think we need a better system of adjusting child support awards. It should be a simple hearing without lawyers unless there's a suspicion of fraud. Something that can be scheduled quickly.

AAaLot

Everyone is on technical violation of some law right now...this is a slippery slope toward the government being able to control your travel [by targeting the lowest of the scum first]. Don't be tempted into thinking this is the 'first perfect law.' New laws always seem like that at first.

State governments need to be in charge of state issues...Federal government in charge of federal ones.

The original intent of a 'passport' need to be remembered.

Xyzzy

Of course you're right -- but since when did laws and common sense have anything to do with each other?!

rebadc

WRONG!

The Feds put this in place to get you on the list but failed to put forth guidlines to get you off the list. They left it up to the States who in turn leave it up to the local Child Support Agency.

You would think that my name would have automaticaly been off this list once I found new employment post 9/11 and started paying current and past due child support. WRONG!

I had to pay my attorney to fix what should not have been a problem in the first place.

dgolding

Because, in this country, the courts have repeatedly and uniformly held that there is a compelling public interest in ensuring that parents pay for their children's food, clothing, and shelter. Crazy, huh?

International travel is not a basic necessity of life. I have no respect for those who don't support their kids.

BTW, usually by the time that these sort of measures are taken (taking away DL, professional licenses, whatever) there have been numerous court cases and attempts to collect - over the course of years.

Dovster

A very large jail with a great amount of freedom (at least in relation to other jails).

It has long been a practice for the courts to take the passport of any person they consider to be a flight risk -- even if the person is only charged with a crime, not yet convicted.

The alternative, of course, is to lock him into a jail. Basically, by setting bail and taking the passport, the court is releasing him into a "larger jail". This larger one might be the entire U.S. or it might be only the state in which the alleged offense took place.

If someone has been ordered by the courts to pay child support, has failed to do so, and has a passport which would enable him to continue to ignore his legal obligations, I see nothing wrong in restricting him to the United States.

HRHMom

ROFLOL!!! Too funny, that WOULD be an act of desperation!!

HRHMom

This is a state by state issue. Here, there is no additional admin fee added to the obligation, nor may employers charge a fee. The employer may be fined treble damages for failure to comply with a withholding order, though.

HRHMom

This works very well here. I personally know several lawyers who do not pay their child support until they get a letter stating their licenses to practice are at risk. Then they suddenly are inspired to pay. I have heard two of them say it is worth the hassle to cause the ex misery . . . they just save the money until they get threatened and then pay it.

PaulKarl

The State Department's policy is not a creation of the courts, it's a creation of the political branches. And a "compelling public interest" is defined by the political branches as "whatever we think will get us re-elected."

A Congressional or Executive finding can easily be made that payment of private debt is a "compelling public interest." For example, the current problems in the sub-prime mortgage market, which have spilled over to Wall Street, demonstrate that home payments are a "compelling public interest." Should the State Department be required to confirm that all applicants for passports be current on their mortgage payments?

All it takes is a news hook and a well-placed lobbyist and anything can become a pre-condition for passport renewal -- just like powerless teenagers have their driver license conditioned on any allegedly good cause that can command a majority of legislative votes and a governor's signature.

It can be if you need an operation or are required to move abroad for health reasons. In any event, international travel is a Constitutional right, as noted in prior posts of mine.

That's precisely what the creators of the policy are depending on. Expansions of state power are always introduced as a means of dealing with the "designated deviants" of the day. Today it's terrorists, deadbeat dads and pedophiles. In the 1950s, it was communists; in the 1980s, it was drunk drivers and crack dealers; in the 1990s, it was drug kingpins.

The drafters of the policy are banking on the fact that people will let the government have expanded powers because they don't like the targeted group. After all, who wants to be seen as defending deadbeat dads and pedophiles?

But once the law is enacted, prosecutors will naturally attempt to apply it in creative ways to other situations. When public interest has waned, the legislature will quietly pass a few amendments which expand the scope. Law and order judges will read the statutory language expansively.

Here's an example: You probably dislike drunk drivers. Fair enough. You probably didn't mind when judges started ordering that second- or third-time drunk driving offenders have their cars equipped with ignition interlocks that prevent the car from moving if the driver has a "measurable quantity," to quote MADD, of alcohol in his or her system. You probably didn't care when MADD (and the device manufacturers) began lobbying states to make ignition interlocks mandatory for all first-time DUI offenders. And you probably didn't hear that Volvo has been persuaded to factory install ignition interlocks, branded the Volvo Alcolock, on some of its trucks.

Chances are, you'll only start caring when factory-installed ignition interlocks become mandatory on all new cars sold in the United States and renewal of a used car registration becomes contingent on the installation of an aftermarket interlock.

But by then it will be too late.

Once the seed is planted, it will grow like kudzu. You have to stop the seed of government power from germinating.

HRHMom

Ideally, yes. In reality, no.

Back in the day, child support was set at the whim of judges. Then in the 1980s the feds said to the states "if you don't establish a child support calculation formula and enforce it uniformly we will not give you any more enforcement money." So each of the states implemented a formula so they could get federal money to enforce (collect) the support. But, each state can (and does) have its own formula and rules - states' rights, ya know.

And federal income tax refunds get garnished for arrears, another one of those mixed fed/state things.

dgwright99

Well, I agree with what I perceive to be the general point of the OP.

There are deadbeat dads, and there are those who are the subject of an injustice from a one-size-fit-all set of rules - and a whole rainbow of cases in between.

The right to travel internationally is a basic human right (not withstanding the right of any country to deny entry to any non-citizen). That was true for Russian jews seeking to emigrate to Israel in the days of the old Soviet Union, and it is true for any US citizens (aside, maybe, from those with criminal convictions) applying for a passport - whether they be the former or the latter of the 2 extremes suggested above.

Any impediment whatsoever (outside of criminal sanction) to obtaining a passport is a denial of that essential human right - and fundemenatlly and in principal no different from what the Soviet Union used to do.

Fredd

A thoughtful post IMHO. ^

Yes, it's no coincidence that that there are onerous taxes and sanctions on smokers as well, to cite another example.

Here's an article highlighting the problems some have had. Yes, it's a libertarian-conservative magazine so consider the source if you will and check out this reprint from the Canadian Reader's Digest as well.