Rep. Cheatam has introduced HB 1040 which would prohibit a court from modifying a parent’s support obligation due to a reduction in income that occurs because of the parent’s incarceration. I understand the motivation – you don’t want to “reward” a guy for going to jail – but this is ill advised.
In most situations involving incarceration, you probably have a guy who was living close to the financial edge anyway and is otherwise somewhat marginal as a member of society. So, he does his time, and, meanwhile, the court’s support order continues to accrue arrearages unabated. It’s pretty easy for someone to rack up many thousands of dollars in arrearages which are owed on top of the person’s ongoing support obligations. I am sympathetic to the “sucks for him, but it shouldn’t be the kid’s problem” line of thinking. But, as I know all too well, it’s tough to get blood out of a turnip. If you put a guy too far down in the hole, eventually, he’s going to just say “screw it,” and walk away the best he can. To maintain steady payments, generally you need to give the person some hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I’m not sure government wants to give these guys “light.” Fringe players in our society are not too welcome these days. If they’re forced into a corner they can be locked up for good. Then, nobody has to worry about them.
Minor criminals, the homeless, the non-skilled unemployed and other unproductive members of society all drain governmental resources. Why not imprison them? Out of sight, out of mind.
So a guy makes $500 gross per week and has to pay $ 80 per week child support. He shoots the mother of his son/daughter because he’s angry. Mother survives. He is sentenced to 8 years in prison. When he gets to prison, he seeks a reduction in support because of his incarceration and his new earnings of $ 16 gross per week. Real nice.
So, he gets out and has an arrearage of $32,000 plus a felony record and a continuing obligation of $80/wk. Good luck collecting on that.