|
State program cracks down on ‘deadbeat’ parents
Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 - Posted by Kevin Fanning * A new state program is matching up hunting licenses against lists of parents behind on their payments is the state’s newest way to chip away at the long-standing problem of child-support collection. In the six months the program has been in effect, the state has collected nearly $130,000 from 90 parents. Gov. Blagojevich vowed to improve on Illinois’ ranking among the nation’s worst at child support collection when he took office in 2003. Last year, the state collected a record $1.2 billion in payments. Despite some improvement in the last few years state officials say custodial parents, mostly women, still are owed $3.2 billion in back child support. The new program is just one way to help chip away at the problem. A program launched several years ago withholds professional licenses, such as medical or accounting licenses, from parents behind in their child support. In January, the state began sending warning notices to deadbeat parents threatening to suspend their driver’s licenses if they fail to start paying up within 60 days. More than $127,000 has been collected since. llinois is trying to duplicate the success of other states, where people have paid large amounts to hunt. In Maine, one hunter paid $30,000 in back child support after being selected in an annual lottery for one of only 3,000 coveted licenses to hunt that state’s majestic moose. The program seems to be working, and many are singing its praises:
* What other avenues do you think the state could pursue to aid the problem?
|
 |
|
|
- Leave a light on George - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:16 am:
A bit of an over statement here. It is a long standing federal law that requires states to crack down on dead beat dads by withholding other licenses. What the land of lincoln recently has done is join this century and computerize the issuing of hunting and fishing licenses which allows for a quick check of the dead beat dad data base. Still a good thing but not really new.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:18 am:
We live in a digital age. Child support payments should be automatically deducted from a parent’s paycheck. It is just too difficult for folks to catch up with payments, and it is far easier for everyone if we set up automatic deductions and make them mandatory.
Money is often a problem within a failed marriage. It simply makes sense to eliminate this irritant from ex-spouses by utilizing this method. It is more productive for ex-spouses and their children to build on other life issues. Too often money owed overwhelms parent child relationships.
So this is not simply a matter of cash. It is also a problem that causes fractured families to fracture further. Automatic deductions for parental support payments removes the problems of collection and removes the problems of family relationships.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:18 am:
Start publishing their names or threatening to do so. Hopefully, embarassing them will help. Maybe 3 letters and then publish if they make no efforts to begin paying.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:23 am:
Deny access to casinos….(big brother, are you listening??)
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:25 am:
I believe the majority of deadbeat dads have no regular paycheck Vanilla Man. That makes it difficult to automatically deduct anything. Like a lot of issues, this is very complicated and simple solutions sound nice but don’t work.
- Trafficmatt - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:41 am:
OK, I don’t have a new idea, but just a comment on what the program has done.
This may sound cold, but I think it needs to be said.
I was somewhat surprised at the result, and maybe I’m not seeing the whole thing. $130,000 collected from a program that is 6 months old? I’m wondering how much money has the state spent on this program in 6 months? Probably plausible that they have spent more than $130,000 in that same six month time frame.
I’m not arguing at ALL, that this is not a worthy program. Deadbeat dads (and moms) are a problem, there is no excuse for it and they need to be prodded to pay up.
What I am arguing is the effectiveness. It’s almost plausible that the state could have just sent a check to the moms and this would have been a cheaper solution (I know, I know there would be far more problems with that, so it is not an effective solution).
The State has to come up with a more effective way of dealing with this.
Have I missed something Kevin?
- Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:44 am:
I was a little surprised by the low amount as well. However, keep in mind that this is a new program, and hunting season doesn’t kick into high gear for a couple more months. I would expect a lot more to roll in by next year.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:55 am:
“I believe the majority of deadbeat dads have no regular paycheck Vanilla Man. That makes it difficult to automatically deduct anything. Like a lot of issues, this is very complicated and simple solutions sound nice but don’t work.”
Nonsense!
These guys are not victims! They are not paying their child support for many reasons, not having a paycheck is most likely NOT one of those reasons!
Once you fall behind on something as big as a child support payment, you are hit by an even larger problem the following month, and the month after that. It snowballs until you owe so much you can’t seem to ever catch up. Then you just stop trying.
That is why we should have automatic deductions. These guys are working. They get a paycheck just like the vast majority of us.
Your claim is utter nonsense.
What a pessimist!
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:06 am:
I’m confused.
–Last year, the state collected a record $1.2 billion in payments. Despite some improvement in the last few years state officials say custodial parents, mostly women, still are owed $3.2 billion in back child support.–
That’s billion with a B? The state collected $1.2 billion in back child support? Or $1.2 billion in child support was paid? I haven’t got around to my first divorce yet, so I’m not sure of the mechanics.
- Smitty Irving - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:52 am:
To Vanilla Man -
If people work “regular” jobs, the child support system will catch them. Those that don’t are usually self employed, contractors, work in construction, or change jobs often. Noticed that in one article the guy who wanted his deer license paid off with a worker’s comp claim - which means he probably wasn’t working to begin with … .
- cermak_rd - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 12:07 pm:
Yes, the problem doesn’t tend to be with those that earn regular paychecks, the state can and does garnish wages to keep them up to date once they fall a little behind (not greater than 100g!). Many of the guys who are behind are self-employed so may either be cheating or may have a fall off in business, and many are simply perpetually under or unemployed and the phrase about blood and turnips applies.
- Vinron - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 12:12 pm:
You’re right, Kevin, that hunting season doesn’t begin for a few months, but fishing licenses expire March 1 or March 31– and most of these guys/gals will want to get their combo hunting/fishing licenses in March.
while we shouldn’t let deadbeat parents on the gambling boat to spend their kids’ money, figuring out who is and isn’t a deadbeat parent trying to get on the boat would be a nightmare.
Going after the driver’s license is a good idea — but people drive with no valid DL all the time. Shame is probably the only thing that will work.
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 12:54 pm:
“State program cracks down on ‘deadbeat’ governor” - Now that’s a program we could all get behind!
- ashamed - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 1:21 pm:
The “deadbeat” State of Illinois going after deadbeat dads. Shameful. The state is over $2 BILLION behind in paying its bills.
You owe doctors, pharm’s, nursing homes, contract workers, school dist’s, Soil and Water Conservation District offices, 4-H programs, underground storage tank removers, the state’s pension system, back sale taxes to cities, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Why don’t you look in the mirror Mr. Governor and pay your own bills!
- Ghost - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 1:44 pm:
simple, hold them in contempt, put them in county jail with work release. They get out when the arrearage is caught up. No job, no need to be released. the contempt can be cured by paying up.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 2:44 pm:
OK - Who is writing the above?
Kevin - I hope you can find out!
Thats defamation!
- Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 2:46 pm:
Trust me I’m on it.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 3:08 pm:
VanillaMan,
Perhaps I was misunderstood, it happens alot. I spent a few years managing a state contract for child support enforcement in Cook County in the mid 1990s, and though a lot has changed since then, I still feel like I know a bit about this topic.
As others have pointed out already, the state does a pretty good job of garnashing wages of those who are working. When a family applies for public aid, parentage must be established so that the state can seek reimbursement from a responsible parent, in most cases the father. The vast majority of the billions owed to children will not be recovered because the deadbeat parent isn’t working, is working for cash or other non-payroll basis, is in prison or disabled, or any number of circumstances that make it impossible to pay. Those are the facts.
Taking away drivers licenses is not exactly an incentive to find a job, nor is putting someone in jail. Those who have the means to provide for their children but don’t, they often do get sent to jail. But those people are the exception, not the rule.
Unfortunately, not all men are VanillaMen. Some father many children from many different mothers, with no care in the world for the cost to tax payers in the form of public aid. The turth we don’t like to admit is that Illinois, like most states, will never see the day when 100% of child support owed is payed. $1.2 billion is pretty good too, believe it or not.
I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist. Utter nonsense is the idea that all fathers have incomes to pay for the care of their children. Whether they could or should is another argument. Fact is, a lot don’t.
- Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 3:24 pm:
—Unfortunately, not all men are VanillaMen—
Care to elaborate?
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 3:30 pm:
I have several thoughts. First, I will hazard an informed guess that a new record in collections has been set virtually every year for the past dozen years or so. I will also hazard that a new record in uncollected child support is set almost every year. I hope I’m right about #1 and wrong about #2, but I don’t think so.
Every Governor for at least the last three have attempted to improve this program, and most have succeeded to some degree.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 3:39 pm:
Kevin,
I once read here why VanillaMan chose that handle. It was an eloquent story about the proper role of men in society, who accept their responsibilities without asking to be honored for doing what they are supposed to do and seek no special recognition for it. I meant it as a compliment, not a slam.
- Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 3:42 pm:
K makes sense. Definitely background info I wouldn’t get. Thanks.
- Anon - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 9:48 pm:
Probably billions, not millions because there are alot of kids out there and I’m sure plenty of the divorces occured before they were even in school(mine was an infant). I know for a fact that what we’re owed more than the 130,000 collected, and we’ll never see it. That amount BTW doesn’t even include school supplies, health insurance, etc., which were also part of the settlement.
Wage garnishments work, but as noted, many parents are hiding their money which is often made through self-employment. I’m also going to guess that a large number of those self-employed are making the big bucks. (My ex went to the extreme of even not paying taxes to hide his $ and underreporting until he got caught and then had to pay huge sums to the Feds and State later–instead of his child, of course.)
When I tried to collect several times decades ago, I spent more on attorneys’ fees (major firm, discounted rates) than I collected and eventually gave up. It was a losing battle.
One judge even told me that he was surprised I had the nerve to try to collect because I was “sitting on a pretty perch in my house in….” so I must be doing well. He also, using a “fatherly” voice, told me to get married again soon. (I kid you not. My day in court. I’ve worked full-time my entire life except for maternity leave (and a RIF) to make ends meet.)
Taking drivers licenses away doesn’t work because visitation is not dependent on payment of child support, and who wants to worry about your ex getting pulled over with your child in the car?). Besides, most women believe that children should have a relationship with their father, even the deadbeats.
Publishing names (and collecting) just further irritates those who are already violent and can shame the children if word gets around.
Sad to say, but the only advice I have to correct the problem is 1) dump your significant other FAST if you ever find out s/he has kids and has ever missed a payment, and 2) shun the people who complain about their signficicant other having to pay support to their kids from previous marriages.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 9:49 pm:
Ten years is a long time ago when we consider the state of digital banking, debit cards, and LINK cards. We all leave trails. We can track where fathers get money.
Even if we get only those fathers who are on a payroll and prevent them from falling behind on their child support payments, then we still will relieve agency staffers on the amount of work they need to do. This frees them to focus on tougher cases.
So this is still a good idea. It prevents fathers from becoming deadbeat dads and frees agency staffers to pursue harder cases.
We should do this.
Finally, thank you 47th Ward for your clarifications. Your background on this issue is excellent and I appreciate your important feedback.
- Anon - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 10:36 pm:
I agree that the government should help, and I’m glad that the State is at least trying now. Those are tax dollars I don’t mind paying if they’ll help a struggling family.
Furthermore (and as silly as it sounds), I know for a fact that if the government had intervened in ANY WAY when we were going through our struggle, my ex would have seen that as a clear message that he was up against something bigger than the two of us. The outcome wouldn’t have been based soley upon the fact that he had more money to spend on attorneys’ fees and the luck of the draw when it came to the judges assigned to our lawsuits.