The Supremes and the deadbeats

While most people focused on the Supreme Court video game ruling, an equally important case went pretty much unnoticed.  This case affects millions of families, in particular, children.  Turner vs. Rogers dealt with deadbeat dads and is more commonly known as the ‘deadbeat dad case.’

According to the Washington Post :

The justices ruled in a 5 to 4 decision (PDF) to uphold the appeal of Michael Turner, a father who had been jailed for a year because he did not — he said could not — pay the nearly $6,000 in child support payments he owed. The court decided that Turner’s incarceration violated the due process clause because he had not been told that his ability to pay was crucial to the case and the court never determined whether Turner could, in fact, make his child support obligations.

The Turner case addressed one of the biggest problems in the national child support enforcement program. Though most sentient adults agree parents need to meet their child support obligations, enforcement rules often don’t recognize the reality of financial situations.

A noncustodial parent might have lost a job, as millions did in the recession, but it’s doubtful his or her payment schedule changed at all. It can be a slippery slope from provider to deadbeat.

Upon first glance (see PDF link) the original defendant, one Mr. Turner of South Carolina, is not a very sympathetic figure.  I felt he deserved to be jailed.  However, he was not represented by an attorney and he got caught up in a real legal catch-22.  He had to be out of jail in order to make money to pay his child support.  This guy was ordered to pay $52.73 per week. That might not seem like much to some people.  To others, it is a fortune.  Throwing a person in jail who has this few assets seems to be self defeating. 

This case has brought up some interesting conversation that probably needed to take place decades before this case ever went to the Supreme Court.  17 million children are affected annually by divorce and child support payments.  Nothing throws a family into poverty and alters their economic status any more than divorce, even more so than unemployment because one  generally finds work in the future.  Divorce doesn’t ‘fix’ itself like that. 

Very often, the non-custodial parent has been ordered to pay amounts that far exceed what that person can comfortably afford.  No one cares.  State formulas are fairly rigid and look more at income as a means test than other circumstances like other obligations, other expenses, etc.  Divorce lawyers are all too willing to have parents at each others throats so they can make the almighty buck.  People who can settle things equitably generally don’t hire junkyard dog lawyers.  In other words, animosity is like money in the bank to many divorce lawyers. 

The custodial parent often does not have enough money.  Child care expenses almost make it not worth working.  The expense of housing, food, clothing all too frequently  make it impossible for the extras that kids need and want  today.  The non-custodial parent wonders where all that child support money is going and the custodial parent is hanging on by a thread. 

So why this breakdown in communications?  One size fits all.  And it wasn’t any better before state formulas were the’ in thing’ to do.  My husband, many years ago, had custody of his two boys.  He never got a dime over 13 years.  Men didn’t get awarded child support.  It was that simple.  Before he had custody, he paid.  Actually he paid as much as Mr. Turner was ordered to pay, but that was decades ago and when he had to pay, it severely strapped his bank account.  (reference:  it amounted to about what  one would pay for a double car payment.)  So, having been on both sides of the aisle on this subject, child support rarely pleases anyone, most of all the children. 

Americans aren’t stupid people.  How can they get this one subject, that affects so many people, so wrong?  How do we lock people in jail where the pay is $.30 an hour if you can even get work, to extract money out of them?  That makes no sense.  The families end up paying to get their sons out of jail (or daughters).   Could a better job be done assessing someone’s income AND ability to pay?  What happens when a person is unemployed?  Are they excused? If they are excused, what happens to those kids and custodial parent who are counting on that money for living expenses?

Perhaps rather than a 100% state formula approach , child support fees ought to go to an independent panel to be determined with safety nets involved for unemployment, obligations,  and significant illness.  Rather than putting money into hunting down dead beat parents, there should be a slush fund to borrow from on a short term basis. 

Perhaps more should be done to prevent divorce.  How much is provided in the way of counselling for couples who are often stressed out over jobs, money and that balancing act we call life?  Most insurance doesn’t cover marriage counselling.  However, it is probably one of the most important interventions a couple can seek. 

Couples without kids who decide to divorce are not the problem.  Couples with children who divorce often leave a great deal of human misery in the wake.  Nothing creates economic disadvantage like divorce. 

Hopefully the dead beat dad case will bring productive discussion to the table. American kids depend on it.