|
|
|
The television station shows three general laborers, three construction laborers, a landscaper, a salesman and two tradesmen, most of them Latino men with dour expressions on their faces. Are they the featured men in a report about hard times for blue-collar workers in the state of Texas? The hopefuls for a local job training program? No—they are Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s “Top 10 Most Wanted Child Support Evaders.” The 10 men collectively owe nearly $700,000 in back child support. Not one appears to have an education, and the big wage earner in the group is a plumber. Abbott says he “singled out” these men because they “have the ability” to pay their child support but “refuse to do so.” One wonders what the financial condition of those not “singled out” is. For the past month Abbott has been publicizing lists with the men’s photos and biographical information. The lists have been published or reported on in dozens of Texas media outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, KHOU, ABC 13, News 8 Austin, KBTV4, and many others. Abbott recently proclaimed the list a success, after he arrested the landscaper–who owed $109,747–the salesman, and one of the construction laborers. The two highest-ranked evaders still on the lam are the welder, who owes $130,796, and one of the general laborers, who owes $94,107. Few, if any, are asking the obvious question—how did men of such humble means end up owing so much money? While none on Abbott’s list would or should qualify for Father of the Year, the arrearages are likely created in large part because the child support system is mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments. Abbott’s office backhandedly acknowledges the difficulties men in these situations face, advising obligors “it is best to get a lawyer, if you can afford one, to handle your attempt to change the amount of child support you owe.” Yet how many unemployed blue-collar workers can afford to hire an attorney at $200 an hour or more to represent them in a child support case? By federal law, child support orders cannot be retroactively modified, no matter how mistaken, misguided or ridiculous. Even men who fell behind on their child support because they had heart attacks, broken legs or cancer cannot have their arrearages eliminated. And much of the arrearages owed by Abbott’s “Top 10” accrued before 2002, when Texas charged obligors 12% interest, one of the highest interest rates in the country. Also, under Texas law, an obligor who owes only three months of past-due child support can have his driver’s license or other professional licenses suspended, interfering with his ability make a living. To be fair, Abbott’s “Top 10” list is not unusual. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earned poverty-level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. In the past 18 months, “deadbeat parents” have been the targets of similar, highly-publicized law enforcement actions in Virginia, Kentucky, and Arizona. Virginia’s “Most Wanted” list was topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker, who collectively somehow owed over a quarter million dollars in child support. Kentucky’s list sported only one obligor with an education, and the most common designation for occupation was “laborer.” Near the top of Arizona’s list was a maintenance man who owed $90,223, an unemployed man of no known occupation who owed $54,298, and, best of all, a roofer who owed $240,581. While Abbott’s list no doubt contains a few bad actors, the larger problem lies not with non-custodial parents, but instead with the child support system. Arresting low-income parents is neither fair nor useful. What’s needed instead is an overhaul of the system, so that blue-collar workers aren’t turned into criminals because they’ve failed to pay obligations which are beyond their reach.
This column first appeared in the Houston Chronicle (1/7/07). Houston Chronicle Jeffery M. Leving is one of America’s most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the new HarperCollins book Divorce Wars: A Field Guide to the Winning Tactics, Preemptive Strikes, and Top Maneuvers When Divorce Gets Ugly. His website is www.dadsrights.com. Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com. |
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
roger said,
I know a guy (trying desperately to avoid being a deadbeat) that is 53, has high blood pressure, a bad heart, a herniated disk and works in the volatile high tech industry. Just the fear of unemployment alone could kill him. The penalties are so steep if you are an obligor and you lose your job. Paying for one family is tough. Paying for two could prove to be hazardous to ones health.
January 15, 2007 at 4:59 pm
snootfish said,
It is a very, very sick system. It also gives all the wrong incentives. Reward unfaithul wives and irresponsible single women. What do you get. You get more of them — millions of children raised without fathers. Their fathers are suffering. The children are suffering. Many of the mothers are also. It is once again a very, very sick system.
January 15, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Roger Knight said,
Why? Because they are low income fellows who cannot comply with unreasonable support orders applied unconstitutionally and enforced by means that constitute the crimes of extortion and peonage? Not to mention constituting excessive fines and bails.
Are they petitioners or respondents in their divorces?
Did their ex-wives and their lawyers have to prove any wrongdoing whatsoever to secure custody of the kids and to slam them into child support peonage?
Gee whiz, Jeff and Glenn, will you write and article discussing the Holocaust with such qualifying statements as “while some of the Jews sent to Auschwitz were not and should not be considered citizen of the year,”?
Precisely the same logic.
January 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
oneShef said,
On the other side of this industry are the collection companies. This is the side that most resembles the state of Texas and the tact it has taken with regard to the interest t charges. Unlike Texas and the old banking system, collections companies are free to charge “expenses” and an interest rate. When the originating collection company deems it has done all it can to collect, it then sells to another collection company…debt + expenses + interest. This process can be followed with subsequent buying and selling of the debt until, the original debt has no resemblance to the “current” balance being sought.
Having been a collector early in my career and later a lender, my training taught me to question the numbers. How much can a car dealer pack into an invoice? You may never know as it is like sand, constantly shifting. So, you learn to look for the basics. these days, to the dismay of those behind me in checkout lines, I tend to have questions about the origin of the numbers being presented for a sale of any kind..and…
I suspect the numbers that are being presented for the rumination of the public are just like those the collections companies have…balance due + expenses + interest…the self interest of the AG and those divorce lawyers that many times are principals in collection agencies!
January 15, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Roger Knight said,
Specifically their statements as to Darren Mack of Reno, Nevada and to Perry Manley of Seattle, Washington, and their statements concerning us “fools” in the men’s rights and fathers’ rights movement who do not share their utter condemnation of Darren and Perry.
Cutting to the chase, I will say that there are extremely good public policy reasons for defining armed robbery, extortion and peonage to be crimes. Including where the money being extorted is in liquidation of a validly existing debt.
If, say a landlord were to threaten a tenant with Bruiser and Human Mack Truck who will bust up his knees and then some if he does not pay the rent, the landlord is guilty of extortion however valid the rent debt is.
And by that same token, armed robbery, extortion, and peonage (where an obligor is compelled by extortion to get a job to make the payments) is just as illegal in the enforcement of a child support obligation. The public policy reasons for prohibiting armed robbery, extortion, and peonage do not magically disappear when the debt or obligation being enforced is child support or alimony or property division in a divorce.
One of those important public policy reasons is illustrated by the Perry Manley and Darren Mack cases:
Sometimes the person being extorted reacts badly.
Isn’t that right, O.J. Simpson?
January 16, 2007 at 1:30 am
roger said,
imagine an unhealthy man whose doctor says “you must stop working and rest or you are going to die…”
but if he stops working, he goes to jail.
January 16, 2007 at 7:48 am