.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

 
LA SENATE ALLOWS SEIZURE OF GAMBLING WINNINGS FOR BACK CHILD SUPPORT

The Louisiana Senate approved a measure that would expand the state's authority to seize gambling winnings of parents who are more than 30 days late on their child support payments. The 38-0 vote sent Senate Bill 53 introduced by Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Abbeville, to the House.

Existing law allows the Department of Social Services to seize, among other assets, lottery winnings or progressive slot machine annuities. Gautreaux's proposal would add "cash gaming winnings" that exceed $1,200, the threshold that triggers filing of a W2-G form with the Internal Revenue Service. The affected parent would have 30 days to appeal the seizures.

The bill also requires the Department of Social Services to report annually to the Legislature on its program to capture gambling proceeds from delinquent parents.

Labels:


 
LA CLOSER TO SEIZING GAMBLING WINNINGS FOR CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Louisiana closer to seizing gambling winnings for child support payments

The Louisiana Senate today approved a measure that would expand the state's authority to seize gambling winnings of parent who are more than 30 days late on child support payments. The 38-0 vote sends Senate Bill 53 by Sen. Nick Gautreaux, D-Abbeville, to the House.

Existing law allows the Department of Social Services to seize, among other assets, lottery winnings or progressive slot machine annuities. Gautreaux's proposal would add "cash gaming winnings" that exceed $1,200, the threshold that triggers filing of a W2-G form with the Internal Revenue Service. The affected parent would have 30 days to appeal the seizures.

The bill also requires the Department of Social Services to report annually to the Legislature on its program to capture gambling proceeds from delinquent parents.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/04/senate_approves_seizure_of_gam.html

Labels:


Monday, April 26, 2010

 
S.C. DSS FAILS FEDERAL CHILD WELFARE STANDARDS/CHILD ADVOCATES URGE LAWMAKERS TO STOP CUTS

In our mind "S.C. DSS Fails Federal Child Welfare Standards" and "Child advocates urge lawmakers to find new money and stop cuts" are related.

Granted, part of the Mess at DSS is related to institutional mismanagement. On the other hand, the South Carolina General Assembly cannot keep cutting funding for DSS and expect DSS to perform its core functions in a competent manner.


Thursday, April 22, 2010

 
JAILING INDIGENTS FOR NON-SUPPORT IN SOUTH CAROLINA MAY NOT BE COERCING PAYMENTS

In "S.C. High Court Upholds Jail for Indigent Parents," Rick Brundrett wrote, “If imprisoning indigent parents improves collection rates, it’s hard to tell that by looking at the overall numbers.”

The recently released Child Support Enforcement FY ‘07 Annual Report to Congress casts further doubt on whether jailing indigent parents for non-payment of child support is an effective strategy for reducing child support arrearages in South Carolina--note the South Carolina data on Table 71: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years.

Simply stated, if jailing those who cannot pay could induce them to pay, we should be seeing a steady decrease in the total child support arrearages. However, not only are we seeing a fairly steady increase in the total arrearages, but it should also be kept in mind that, although Table 71 is the most recently released federal document, it contains non-current pre-recession data. Therefore, when the post-recession data is available, we suspect that the arrearages will be shown to have increased dramatically.

Labels: , ,


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

 
SOME STATES--NOT SC--SHOWING DECLINE IN CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES

A review of "Table 71: Total Amount of Arrearages Due for All Fiscal Years for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years" reveals that some states are decreasing their child support arrearages while the arrearages in other states continues to increase. Note, for example, the progress made in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming.

Maybe States such as South Carolina should contact States such as North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming and find out how they have accomplished this feat and attempt to replicate their efforts. One thing is for certain--while not all the States that have complied with Federal Law by adopting a New Hire Reporting System and installing a computerized child support tracking and collection system have reduced their child support arrearages, all States that have failed to comply with Federal Law--South Carolina--have seen an increase in their arrearages.

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

 
THE SOUTH CAROLINA CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES

The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Family Assistance recently released a report, titled "Emerging Findings from the Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Programs: A Review of Select Grantee Profiles and Promising Results." This report features the South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families as a "Promising Practice." To view the complete report, click here.

Labels:


Friday, April 16, 2010

 
UNDERSTANDING THE CUMULATIVE NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT DEBT

According to "Understanding the Child Support Debt":

Despite record collections by State CSE programs, considerable sums of child support go unpaid every year. As of September 30, 2006, States reported that the total national unpaid child support debt that has accumulated since the program began in 1975 is $105 billion. This large accumulation of child support arrears is a serious concern for a number of reasons. First, if these arrears could be collected, the additional income would clearly benefit the children and families who are owed this child support. Second, some of these arrears are owed to the government. Finally, large arrears balances give the impression that State CSE programs are not doing their job, when, in fact, the situation is much more complicated (emphasis added).
South Carolina has been fined over $80,000,000 essentially for its failure to install federally-mandated child support enforcement programs on the State level. Therefore, we think it is safe to say that, in this case, appearance mirrors reality and the folks at the South Carolina CSE "are not doing their job."

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 13, 2010

 

SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS DEBTOR'S PRISONS

In "S.C. High Court Upholds Jail for Indigent Parents," Rick Brundrett writes:

In South Carolina, family court judges can throw indigent parents behind bars for non-payment of child support even if they cannot afford attorneys.

The Palmetto State is one of only five states that don’t guarantee indigent parents the right to counsel in civil contempt hearings that can result in jail time, the S.C. Supreme Court said in a March 29 ruling (Price v. Turner, opinion no. 26793), which was ignored by other media outlets.

"We recognize that … we are adopting the minority position," Chief Justice Jean Toal, writing for the court, said in a footnote in the ruling. "However, we are persuaded that the minority position held by Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and New Mexico is sound and in keeping with controlling precedent."

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in a 1981 ruling involving a North Carolina termination of parent rights case, said that the right of an indigent defendant to have an appointed attorney isn’t just reserved for criminal cases, noting that the "defendant’s interest in personal freedom … triggers the right to appointed counsel."

The five-member S.C. Supreme Court unanimously ruled against a coalition of state and national legal groups that submitted a joint legal brief urging the justices to set aside an Oconee County Family Court judge’s civil contempt order in 2008.

The groups included the S.C. office of the American Civil Liberties Union, the S.C. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.

"The South Carolina Family Court nevertheless has imprisoned hundreds, and likely thousands, of indigent defendants for nonpayment of support without appointed counsel," the groups said in their friend-of-the-court brief.

"These defendants languish in modern-day debtors’ prisons after patently unfair proceedings, many of which lack any factual findings," the brief added. "Often the courts do not even inquire into the defendant’s ability to pay their support obligation."

The number of indigent parents imprisoned statewide on contempt charges is unknown, as are child support collection rates for that group. Neither the S.C. Judicial Department nor the state Department of Social Services keeps records on those numbers, according to spokeswomen for the agencies.

Total statewide child support collection rates are barely above 50 percent, DSS records show.

Victoria Middleton, executive director of the S.C. ACLU, told The Nerve last week that imprisoning indigent parents can wind up costing taxpayers more in the long run.

"The state really needs to adequately fund and administer a public defender system," she said.

The S.C. Supreme Court in recent years has been pressured by the S.C. Bar, the state’s professional organization for lawyers, to change the way private attorneys are appointed by courts to represent indigents because of shortfalls in state funds to pay those lawyers.

Greenville attorney Derek Enderlin, who handled the appeal of Michael Turner – the parent at the center of the Supreme Court ruling – told The Nerve last week that his client likely will appeal the March 29 decision.

Turner was sentenced by Oconee Family Court Judge Timothy Cain on Jan. 3, 2008, to one year in jail after he was found in civil contempt for failing to pay $5,728.76 in child support, court records show.

Turner, who appeared by himself, was not informed by Cain of his right to an attorney, according to the legal brief submitted by the ACLU and other legal groups.

Turner presented evidence that he was indigent, telling Cain he had broken his back and was seeking disability, though the judge made no finding on his indigent status, the groups said in their brief.

Turner served the full year in jail and has since served another six months, Enderlin told The Nerve, adding he was out for only a few months before he was ordered back to jail.

Turner in court papers contended his constitutional rights to an attorney and due process were violated. But the Supreme Court in its ruling said he wasn’t entitled to a lawyer because he was found in civil contempt, as opposed to criminal contempt.

"The purpose of civil contempt is to coerce the defendant to comply with the court’s order," the justices wrote. "In contrast, criminal contempt is intended to punish a party for disobedience and disrespect. … A (person) imprisoned for civil contempt is said to hold the keys to his cell because he may end the imprisonment and purge himself of the sentence at any time by doing the act he had previously refused to do."

The ACLU and other legal groups in their brief said that "whether the proceeding is deemed civil rather than criminal in nature does not diminish the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel, because the defendant’s liberty interest is the preeminent factor."

"If this Court does not immediately address this obvious constitutional violation, it will be giving the lower courts carte blanche to imprison South Carolina citizens without ever providing them the benefit of an attorney to safeguard their rights," the groups said.

If imprisoning indigent parents improves collection rates, it’s hard to tell that by looking at the overall numbers. For last fiscal year, a total of $174.1 million in child support was collected in South Carolina out of $339.7 million owed, or a collection rate of 51.25 percent, according to DSS records.

Last year’s collection rate was slightly higher than in fiscal year 2008, though that rate was more than 10 percentage points below the national collection rate, records show.
Although we agree that South Carolina's collection rates are pitiful, we cannot completely vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Brundrett's figures. Still, we agree that imprisoning indigents for failure to meet their financial obligations does not appear to be a very effective strategy for solving the problem.

Labels: , , ,


Friday, April 09, 2010

 
MAJOR FEDERAL FUNDING AT RISK IN SOUTH CAROLINA

As we noted previously, according to Jim Hodges, et. al. v. Tommy G. Thompson et. al.:
[States that fail to install computerized child support collection and tracking systems] may lose federal funding under both Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV- (TANF). See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2). Alternatively, a State may opt for an alternative penalty in lieu of disapproval of their state plan and the withholding of federal funds if the State is making a good faith effort to comply with the program’s requirements and the State has submitted a corrective compliance plan. See 42 U.S.C. § 655(a)(4). South Carolina has elected to incur the alternative penalty.
To date, South Carolina has "opted" to be penalized approximately $82,000,000 in "alternative penalties" for its failure to install the mandated computerized child support tracking and collection system. The State has argued that it is making a "good faith effort" to comply with federal law and that, therefore, Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) funding should not be with-held.

Assuming, arguendo, that anyone at South Carolina DSS can argue with a straight face that South Carolina is making a good faith effort* to comply with federal law, we wondered why South Carolina would elect to be fined $82,000,000 in lieu of loosing Title IV-D and Title IV-A funding. So we asked Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner for Child Support Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, "What is the total yearly combined Title IV-D (child support enforcement) and Title IV-A (TANF) funding received by South Carolina?" A few days later we received an e-mail from Rob Cohen of the ACF:
Commissioner Turetsky referred your email to me for response.

The latest Title IV-D expenditure information available can be found in our FY 2006 Report to Congress at [this link]. Please see table 38. We are in the process of posting the ’07 Report – it should be on our website next week.

The latest Title IV-A information available can be found in the Office of Family Assistance’s FY 2008 TANF Financial Data page at [this link]. Please see table A.
Mr. Cohen did not directly answer our question. However, the charts he referenced indicate that the total yearly combined Title IV-D and Title IV-A funding received by South Carolina is approximately $77,115,727. We derived this figure by combining the most recent South Carolina figures on Table A (COMBINED FEDERAL FUNDS SPENT IN FY 2008 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES ON ASSISTANCE IN FY 2008) with the most recent South Carolina figures on Table 38 (Total Administrative Expenditures for Five Consecutive Fiscal Years). $36,834,443 + $40,281,284 = $77,115,727.

Again, as long as South Carolina has not installed the federally mandated computerized child support tracking and collection system, it risks having all Title IV-D and TANF funding terminated. So South Carolina needs to get cracking before someone in Commissioner Turetsky's office with a law degree considers the question of whether South Carolina is actually making good faith efforts to comply with the mandates of the PRWORA.

*See, Black’s Law Dictionary 701 (7th ed. 1999), defining good faith as, “A state of mind consisting in (1) honesty in belief or purpose, (2) faithfulness to one’s duty or obligation, (3) observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in a given trade or business, or (4) absence of intent to defraud or to seek unconscionable advantage.”

Labels: , , ,


Tuesday, April 06, 2010

 
ELEVEN INMATES SUE OVER JAIL CONDITIONS IN ORANGEBURG COUNTY SC

According to "11 inmates sue over jail conditions," "Eleven inmates have filed lawsuits against the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center in U.S. District Court over living conditions. Inmates claim they’ve suffered malfunctioning toilets and showers, don’t receive prescription medication in a timely manner and have no emergency call system in their cells, among other things." The article goes on to say:
Last July, the Regional Detention Center was cited for housing sentenced and pre-trial inmates together. Other violations cited were the lack of two-way emergency intercom systems in individual cells and failure to give inmates required outdoor exercise time due to staffing shortages.

The state fire marshal’s office also cited the detention center for potential fire hazard violations, including the storage of combustible materials in rooms with electrical equipment. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation spokesman Jim Knight said Monday the fire marshal’s office is scheduled to re-inspect the facility.

Many of the inmates who sued in federal court are being held for non-payment of child support.

Child support inmates usually make up half or more of the total population, which averages about 400 inmates.

One complains he is in jail for child support, “and they got me lock down like a hard criminal for 18 hours a day. Do you think that’s fair to a person that don’t have no charge just in here for child support? Can’t go out to work because the jail charge you $5 dollars a day when you go out if you go out. Child support still running when you in jail it never stops ...
The way that things are headed, South Carolina could lock up half its population and still not reduce its child support arrearage. Maybe it is time to rethink the way the State is doing things and to revisit the question "Who is Benefiting from the Incarceration of 'Deadbeats'?"

Labels: , , , ,


Monday, April 05, 2010

 
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF PRO ATHLETES WITH ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN—EXPANDED AND UPDATED 2009 ADDITION

Click here for the latest update.

Labels: ,


Friday, April 02, 2010

 
THREE RESPONSES TO "IS THE APPLICATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT IN SOUTH CAROLINA 'DADDY ROUND-UPS' IMPROPER?"

Following are the 3 responses to “Is the application of civil contempt in South Carolina’s 'daddy round-ups' improper?”
________________________________________

John Taylor says on July 20, 2009 at 9:38 pm:

I really found this blog interesting. My personal case serves as a prime example of what’s wrong with the S.C civil law and what Mr. Forman has stated. I cannot pay my ex wife the amount that I owe her because I suffer from M.S and now work from home for a lot less than I use to make in the corporate world. I have already been locked up once for seven days until my in-laws paid $19,000 in back payments. (I owe nearly $1800 a month which is another story in itself.) For the last two years I have been through two lawyers trying to get my Ex to agree to a new payment or a lump sum settlement that my Dad was graciously willing to pay. The problem is that my ex wife will not respond to the courts at all. My lawyer has told me that there is nothing he can do since there is no rule which compels her to answer, As a result, I have been labled a dead beat Dad and have another warrant out for my arrest. What really stinks is that I have now exhausted all of my money and can’t continue to pay a lawyer or pay for all the medical bills that are accumulating. As a result I am currently doing research to see if I can file any civil action myself. I know it’s a long shot but I have nothing left to try and as it stands now I can’t visit my kids in S.C without being thrown back in jail despite my attempts to make things right. I could write a book on my experiences with the Greenville S.C family court but I’ll spare you the details. Just know that I appreciated this article and for anyone out there just getting started with a S.C divorce make sure you hire the best lawyer available even if breaks you. One wrong move and you will be taken to the cleaners and hung out to dry!

WR Waller says on July 26, 2009 at 4:43 pm:

I too suffered six months incarceration in Florence County as the result of these draconian laws. I had been out of work for several months, and in rehab for drug addiction when I was hauled in on a bench warrant. How that affected my recovery is another story all its own! That I could not pay any monies, nor provide for my release in any other manner put me out of touch with the “keys in my pocket” to secure my freedom. I was actually sentenced to a FULL year (to be six months if I got my “good time”). What I want to know is HOW these law serve to protect the children involved? Clearly, if in jail, I could not earn any money, so how was my daughter being helped by my incarceration? If this is to be a criminal penalty, then so-be-it, I could understand that as punishment for ME. What is the intent of the law under civil contempt when punishment is not a prescribed solution of the law? I can only conclude that counties in SC (and the state by aegis) have resorted to “debtor prisons” in order to provide much-needed public works “volunteers” (as well as ancillary trustees to perform tasks in jails where true criminals are housed) soley because the governments lack funds to pay for these services. Cleaning up trash along roadways HAS to be done by someone. Why pay a country employee $15 an hour when a “jail bird” can do it for free? I got to wash laundry, and was exposed to MRSA (staff) as a result. And why, because I owed $700 dollars in child support? Six months for $700. I was not the recipient of any “magic fountain” proceeds. Now, both my ex and I live in other states, but I pay my child support ($84/week )even though I currently receive only $240 a week in worker’s comp. I have no driver’s license, and cannot secure other employment. I know one thing for sure: I’ll never set foot in SC again unless I am chained and bound!

Mrs. Spires says on January 30, 2010 at 1:21 pm:

I am totally at a loss for words. My husband was apprehended last Saturday for “failure” to pay child support after being laid off from his plumbing job. I am the sole provider of our family income. We have a son together and I am having a very difficult time making juggling our available funds. With the current recession and an unemployment rate of over 10% in Georgia alone, it has been a challenge for him to obtain gainful employment. He is currently sitting in the Cobb County Jail, in Georgia, waiting extredition to S.C. to face a judge and possible prison time. It is a wonder to me, how the judicial system in S.C., determines imprisonment for a debt owed (other than fraud), can be collected by someone who does not have the collateral or income to satisfy the debt. Not only are they not able to collect on the “arrearage”, but they are also securing hardship to me and my son!I do not know where I am going to secure the funds necessary to ensure the release of my husband. If this blog is accurate, I am concerned that he may be incarcerated for a year! What then???? Please help!

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?