Should non custodial parents be sent to jail for failing to pay child support

ILoveYourVibes

Less than half of custodial parents in the US recieve full child support due


https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps03.html

• About half (50.2 percent) of all 13.6 million custodial parents had either legal or informal child support agreements. Custodial mothers were more likely to have agreements (52.7 percent) than custodial fathers (39.6 percent).
• The aggregate amount of child support due in 2015 was $33.7 billion, a decrease of $14.0 billion from 2003.
• About 60 percent of the child support due in 2015 was reported as received, averaging $3,447 per year per custodial parent who was due support.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-262.html

Child support is calculated (in the states at least)as a percentage of the non custodial parents income. This can be varying or flat.


The situation with parents not paying is not much better in Ireland. And for a while some parents got away with not paying child support after the age of seven. https://www.thejournal.ie/child-maintenance-3750905-Dec2017/Arrears in maintenanceare common.

Though they are getting though. https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/10-days-jail-for-dad-accused-of-not-paying-enough-maintenance-826118.html Last year this judge sent a father to jail for 10 days for failing to pay child maintenance.

Kristopherus

What's jain ???:D:D:D

_blaaz

Lads are sent to jail suprisingly regularly here for non paying maintenance


Its rarely ever reported as family courts matters are usually kept out of papers

ILoveYourVibes

_blaaz wrote: »

Lads are sent to jail suprisingly regularly here for non paying maintenance


Its rarely ever reported as family courts matters are usually kept out of papers

That many not paying to THAT extent?? Really?

That is nuts.

McMurphy

No, it would be easier and cheaper to just make an attachment order to their earnings.

Deduct at source.

It costs how much to house a prisoner per week?

ILoveYourVibes

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, it would be easier and cheaper to just make an attachment order to their earnings.

Deduct at source.

It costs how much to house a prisoner per week?

I was thinking that. Perhaps they don't surrender their info or go awall.

And obv its not just men. Any non custodial parent.

any Irish figures at all at all

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

any Irish figures at all at all

Difficult to say
Ireland has no state agency with responsibility for child maintenance payments.

machiavellianme

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.

ILoveYourVibes

_blaaz wrote: »

Lads are sent to jail suprisingly regularly here for non paying maintenance


Its rarely ever reported as family courts matters are usually kept out of papers

That isn't true actually in 2017 only three people were sent to jail for this.


That is not from papers but the prison service statistics.
The Irish Prison Service (IPS) confirmed yesterday that only three fathers were jailed for maintenance arrears last in2017 ; one in 2016 and this followed one in 2015 and five in 2014.

One of these men was working and found 6000k his first night in prison suddenly. He also was paying no rent where he lived.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/10-days-jail-for-dad-accused-of-not-paying-enough-maintenance-826118.html

ILoveYourVibes

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.

1.Firstly that is psychotic. Its like you are saying a father should only be a father for what he can GET out of his children. Children are not there to give.

2.Of course he gets access.

3 There are plenty of non custodial parents who don't bother to turn up blaming the custodial parent. Then when the child is older living alone they still don't bother and the truth is revealed.

I know plenty of people who feel let down by the non custodial parent as adults who still cannot get hold of the non custodial parent even then ,whatever their gender.

Turtyturd

Send them to American prisons.

Loveinapril

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay?

They are not paying maintenance to see their child, they are paying maintenance because their child exists and needs shelter, food and clothes.

One eyed Jack

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.

Some fathers do, some fathers don’t. Either way, access is unrelated to maintenance. Both parents are obligated to maintain their children regardless of whether or not they are granted access to their children through the courts. Custody and access issues are predicated upon what is determined by the Courts to be in the best interests of the children, not the best interests of the children’s parents.

ILoveYourVibes

Turtyturd wrote: »

Send them to American prisons.

Is sending them to prison really the best option though??

I mean is it really going to help an acrimonious family environment?

Couldn't we have some sort of attachment counseling program for non custodial parents with such emotional difficulties?

Its obviously not just money.

Post natal depression doesn't happen to just women and can affect the father /child bond.

banie01

Access and Child Support payments all too often become conflated in people's head.

They are not and should not be seen as related.
Access for non custodial parents and their children is important, but that access should not be used as a weapon to punish non compliance, as IMO the child suffers more.

Without going into the vagaries of whether a non-custodial parent can't pay or just won't pay, it is important to ask if as a society we are willing to take such a regressive step?

We have moved far beyond using Jail as a means of punishing Debtors or of coercing their payment.
If we move towards jailing CS defaulters, we are criminalising what is at its very core a civil matter.

We are locking up someone who likely has no or a minor criminal history. We will be placing these people on a criminal register and sending them to what basically amounts to a criminal university given the current recidivism rates.

It is only a small step in real terms between locking someone up because they CS payments, to locking them up because they owe any other money!
It is a dangerous and reckless step that criminalises a non custodial parent regardless of the circumstances of their non-payment and that has the potential to creep in to other areas of debt enforcement.

TLDR: It's a bloody awful idea

Johnny Dogs

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No, it would be easier and cheaper to just make an attachment order to their earnings.

Deduct at source.

It costs how much to house a prisoner per week?

something like between 2 and 6k.

Completely agree. Attatch earnings, why should the taxpayer pay twice?

ILoveYourVibes

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.

Also i have just found something that confounds your theory.


In the UK 87% of non custodial parents see their kids regularly. But only 68% of non custodial parents pay child support.

Unsurprisingly of non custodial parents who don't see their kids regularly only 29% pay any child support.

Feisar

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some fathers do, some fathers don’t. Either way, access is unrelated to maintenance. Both parents are obligated to maintain their children regardless of whether or not they are granted access to their children through the courts. Custody and access issues are predicated upon what is determined by the Courts to be in the best interests of the children, not the best interests of the children’s parents.

A1, call me psycho however if I'm every in that boat goodbye well paid job, hello rock and roll.

ILoveYourVibes

banie01 wrote: »

Access and Child Support payments all too often become conflated in people's head.

They are not and should not be seen as related.
Access for non custodial parents and their children is important, but that access should not be used as a weapon to punish non compliance, as IMO the child suffers more.



It is only a small step in real terms between locking someone up because they CS payments, to locking them up because they owe any other money!
It is a dangerous and reckless step that criminalises a non custodial parent regardless of the circumstances of their non-payment and that has the potential to creep in to other areas of debt enforcement.

TLDR: It's a bloody awful idea

Well first lets get real. Men emotionally link supporting a child with the emotional connection to them. And some men are not connected emotionally to children they don't live with.

Perhaps that connection can be nurtured.

I agree sending Daddy to jail for not paying child support is not best for the child imo.

ILoveYourVibes

Feisar wrote: »

A1, call me psycho however if I'm every in that boat goodbye well paid job, hello rock and roll.

What??

Kimsang

Us child-less are already footing the bills for child households.

I know this is Australia, but its very similar here.

corner of hells

Send the kids to jail, it would be handier all round.

banie01

Just to add.
While there are many people jailed in Ireland for non payment of CS.

AFAIK, jail in those circumstances is because of breach of a court order rather than explicit non payment.
Similar to contempt of court, rather than non payment of CS itself being the offence.
It's a technical fudge that allows a judge to use jail as a compliance for court ordered maintenance.
Paying the CS purges the contempt and allows release.

I may be mistaken on this, if I am I do apologize and would appreciate any correction.

Feisar

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

What??

A1, CALL ME PHYCHO HOWEVER IF I'M EVER IN THAT BOAT GOODBYE WELL PAID JOB, HELLO ROCK AND ROLL.

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

Us child-less are already footing the bills for child households.

I know this is Australia, but its very similar here.

Yes we do. Good lord THAT is shocking!

Single working parents poverty has doubled in Ireland in the last 5 years. So I imagine its the same here.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/poverty-rate-among-working-lone-parents-doubled-in-five-years-1.3814178?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fpoverty-rate-among-working-lone-parents-doubled-in-five-years-1.3814178

Well now anytime single Dads who don't pay want to moan i can remind them i am paying for their kids.

ILoveYourVibes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

something like between 2 and 6k.

Completely agree. Attatch earnings, why should the taxpayer pay twice?

I assume its because there is currently no state body that handles this. You have to go through the courts and this is costly.

ILoveYourVibes

corner of hells wrote: »

Send the kids to jail, it would be handier all round.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I assume its because there is currently no state body that handles this. You have to go through the courts and this is costly.

Revenue already attaches the earnings of people and companies who are not tax compliant, including payment of the property tax. I'm pretty sure the Department of Social Protection can also deduct payments to welfare recipients, and certainly can do so on the direction of a court.

It seems reasonably straightforward.

Peregrinus

banie01 wrote: »

Just to add.
While there are many people jailed in Ireland for non payment of CS.

AFAIK, jail in those circumstances is because of breach of a court order rather than explicit non payment.
Similar to contempt of court, rather than non payment of CS itself being the offence.
It's a technical fudge that allows a judge to use jail as a compliance for court ordered maintenance.
Paying the CS purges the contempt and allows release.

I may be mistaken on this, if I am I do apologize and would appreciate any correction.

I think you are mistaken. There isn't a separate offence of "not paying court-ordered maintenance", for which people get tried and convicted. They're simply committed for non-compliance with a court order (to pay maintenance). And according to the newspaper report linked in post #10, this happens fairly rarely. (Which is what you'd expect, since committal to prison will not often be the most effective way to enforce payment obligations, as already pointed out by others in this thread.)

ILoveYourVibes

Feisar wrote: »

A1, CALL ME PHYCHO HOWEVER IF I'M EVER IN THAT BOAT GOODBYE WELL PAID JOB, HELLO ROCK AND ROLL.

Yeah that is truly psycho. It didn't mean anything in lower case letters either.

banie01

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you are mistaken. There isn't a separate offence of "not paying court-ordered maintenance", for which people get tried and convicted. They're simply committed for non-compliance with a court order (to pay maintenance).

That's what I thought I had explained?
Apologies if I laid it out incorrectly.

Yes the "offence" commited is breach of a court order.
No, there is not an offence of "not paying".

I had thought that jail was on the foot of breach of the order, as a contempt proceeding?
And payment purged the contempt?

ILoveYourVibes

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you are mistaken. There isn't a separate offence of "not paying court-ordered maintenance", for which people get tried and convicted. They're simply committed for non-compliance with a court order (to pay maintenance). And according to the newspaper report linked in post #10, this happens fairly rarely. (Which is what you'd expect, since committal to prison will not often be the most effective way to enforce payment obligations, as already pointed out by others in this thread.)

Also the court route is bound to be prohibitively expensive for many.

spurious

At a minimum make sure a non-paying parent cannot use the child to claim HAP and other benefits.

Peregrinus

banie01 wrote: »

That's what I thought I had explained?
Apologies if I laid it out incorrectly.

Yes the "offence" commited is breach of a court order.
No, there is not an offence of "not paying".

I had thought that jail was on the foot of breach of the order, as a contempt proceeding?
And payment purged the contempt?

Yes, pretty much. And, per the newsaper report, this only happens to a handful of people every year.

ILoveYourVibes

I would think if Freisar isn't willing for non custodial parents to pay without seeing their children he would at least say thank you for us who do I mean we never see them!

ILoveYourVibes

spurious wrote: »

At a minimum make sure a non-paying parent cannot use the child to claim HAP and other benefits.

I hadn't even thought of that.
I wonder how much this costs the state.

Obviously the answer is to teach and support young men to be good fathers.

kirving

Loveinapril wrote: »

They are not paying maintenance to see their child, they are paying maintenance because their child exists and needs shelter, food and clothes.

Correct.

But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.

banie01

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, pretty much. And, per the newsaper report, this only happens to a handful of people every year.

Thanks Peregrinus.

Yes, I know it's quite rare.
I was addressing a point made by another poster that we already jailed parents for non-payment.

My intended thrust was to show that we actually didn't, it was more a contempt issue than criminalisation of a debtor.

Peregrinus

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Correct.

But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.

I think you're thinking of a 50:50 split in terms of custody would leave no maintenance due either way.

But:

50:50 custody isn't necessarily in the best interests of the children. It can be disruptive, for example, to have to change home every week, and in the middle of the school week. (Unless the kids stay in the one house and the parents move in and out, but that presents its own problems.)

And even where 50:50 custody is a good idea and is practicable and is actually operated, it still wouldn't necessarily mean that no maintenance was due, since one parent might have a good deal of money and the other very little, and things like the costs of school fees, holidays, etc, etc have to take account of what each parent can pay.

ILoveYourVibes

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Correct.

But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.

If a child could live one week with Dad and one with mom that would be ideal. However its considered disruptive for the child.

Could they even go to the same school? Some non custodial parents live far away.

I think the only way it could really work would be if the parents both stayed in the same house. And if they can manage that then i doubt they are the types of parents we are talking about.

Kimsang

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I hadn't even thought of that.
I wonder how much this costs the state.

Obviously the answer is to teach and support young men to be good fathers.

The answer could also be to teach women to be better wives...

I liked how this thread started as 'non custodial parent' , but now we are moving into dangerous stereotypical territory.

I mean its very easy for a woman to leave her husband(partner) with their kids and get a state sponsored house and income. Her family and friends will all help and support her. She will win in court.

For a man to do this, he will lose access to his kids in most cases, will be treated as a degenerate by society, will lose most court battles and may be forced to pay support.

This is the reality of the situation.

IMO we have disincentivized men to be good fathers, and replaced them with the state.

silverharp

In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison

"Deadbeat dads" generally refers to fathers who neither live with their children nor provide financial support.

Are you saying that the US provides social housing to mothers who neither live with their children nor provide financial support? If not, what do you mean by "deadbeat mothers"?

ILoveYourVibes

Kimsang wrote: »

The answer could also be to teach women to be better wives...

I liked how this thread started as 'non custodial parent' , but now we are moving into dangerous stereotypical territory.

I mean its very easy for a woman to leave her husband(partner) with their kids and get a state sponsored house and income. Her family and friends will all help and support her. She will win in court.

For a man to do this, he will lose access to his kids in most cases, will be treated as a degenerate by society, will lose most court battles and may be forced to pay support.

This is the reality of the situation.

IMO we have disincentivized men to be good fathers, and replaced them with the state.

In the real world men do not wish to be left holding the baby.

Of course women should be the best wives and mothers they can be.



Keeping a family loving strong and together, setting the tone of the home etc is obviously very important.

A lot of this has obviously been a woman's role. Keeping home life together.

Appreciating those skills in society is important.

Interestingly we don't really appreciate or respect femininity. We don't respect softness etc.

Women don't want to be as sensitive anymore. They want to be strong like men. Confident like men.

Because men of course have been so successful at ruling the world.

Gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine. They are usually key to holding a family together and setting the right tone to a home. But ironically they are the traits least respected in society. And often things people inc women are told are valueless in today's harsh world.

I however disagree i think they are very valuable. And should be brought MORE into the world not less.

Women should be MORE feminine. And shine that light right into the darkest places. Even the business world.

The world should be MORE feminine and more yeilding not less.

I agree with what you have which i have put in bold in your quote.But you would have to be very easy to disincentivize if you are honest.

So in short we should teach the world to respect the feminine more. So women will no longer strive to be men to gain respect.

So yes we SHOULD teach women to be better wives.

But consider this perhaps if the world respected feminine traits they would still be around.

That has nothing to do with men vrs women. Its simply kindness and sweetness are not revered in the world aggression is. It's why they are dying out.

In fact we worship aggression and competitiveness too much. Women are constantly being told be to less caring less emotional less sensitive.

That's not feminism. Its the patriarchy taking over the feminine mind.

ILoveYourVibes

silverharp wrote: »

In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison

If she were deadbeat her kids would be in care.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?

ILoveYourVibes

Kailey Hissing Cellist wrote: »

Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?

I don't. I am the OP. However i asked because its happened.

It was an opener for a general conversation.

Peregrinus

Kailey Hissing Cellist wrote: »

Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?

Very few people, in this thread at any rate, have expressed the view that jail is the answer. On the contrary, most people who have expressed a view have pointed out that it isn't.

Electric Sheep

machiavellianme wrote: »

Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.

Does he pay?

ILoveYourVibes

We need a therapy for post separation families.