Warning: inet_pton(): Unrecognized address 2620:0:1c00:: in E:\CustomerData\webspaces\webspace_00100714\webapps\SiteApp785\htdocs\wp-content\plugins\wordfence\lib\wfUtils.php on line 307 Hounding Low-Income Dads Won’t Pay - Fathers Rights: Jeffery M Leving-Chicago Family Law & Divorce Attorney Fathers Rights: Jeffery M Leving-Chicago Family Law & Divorce Attorney

Hounding Low-Income Dads Won’t Pay

Published on March 22nd, 2011

March 27, 2008

By Jeffery M. Leving & Glenn Sacks

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and Child Support Services Department Director Steven Golightly have announced a sweeping new campaign against “deadbeat dads”. They say their new Most Wanted Delinquent Parent list is modeled on the FBI’s fabled 10 most wanted list. On paper the 10 offenders owe over $2 million, but it’s very questionable that Cooley and Golightly will be collecting much.

Golightly’s action is particularly remarkable considering that the California Department of Child Support Services, which supervises the CSSD, issued a report in January that contradicts any possible rationale for this campaign.

According to the CDCSS, there are four primary factors in creating child-support arrearages in California: “high child -support orders established for low-income obligors”; “a limited number of child-support orders adjusted downward”; “establishment of retroactive child-support orders”; and “accrual of 10 percent interest on child-support debt”. Over a quarter of these arrears is interest.

Unlike the Most Wanted Deadbeat Parent lists put out by most states and counties, the CSSD’s list does not contain the occupations of the “deadbeats”. One can understand why. Nationwide these lists are never comprised of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers and accountants, but instead of fathers who do low-wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money, which they could never hope to pay off. It is rare to find a person with even a college degree on these lists.

In recent years there have been several highly publicized actions similar to CSSD’s, generally coupled with arrests. For example, Virginia’s Most Wanted list was topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand and a construction worker, who collectively somehow owned over a quarter-million dollars in child support.

Similarly, Kentucky’s list during its campaign sported only one obligor with an education, and the most common designation for occupation was “laborer”. How do men of such modest means end up with such fantastic arrearages? The child-support system is largely 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 noncustodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce the support obligation.

To Cooley’s and Golightly’s credit, they did explain that some of the “deadbeats” they’re pursuing may be able to use California’s Compromise of Arrears Program. COAP allows some obligors to settle their artificially inflated paper debts to the state for realistic amounts.

The problem is there has been little outreach done on COAP, so few obligors are aware of it.

Comments are closed.