THE CHILD SUPPORT DILEMMA FOR LOW INCOME FATHERS
CHRIS GENTRY
There is a large and growing distance between those who are rich, and those who are poor. According to Scientific American Magazine the top 20% percent in income own 89% of the wealth in America; and the lower income which is 40%, receive 0.3% of America's wealth (Hager).
One of the symptoms of this growing gap is being seen by low income families in the growing problem of poor fathers owing child support that they cannot pay. Children of many lower income families are not receiving the benefits of having a father in their lives, or the paychecks and support that comes with them; because their fathers are in prison for not paying child support.
The cycle of debt, can begin with a judge who gives a father a child support payment that is unrealistic compared to the net profit of the father. Many judges require child care payments even if the father is making no income at all. Most poor fathers paying child support, end up paying the most from their paychecks as the chart below indicates:
(Luden, Some states are cutting poor Dads A deal on unpaid child support). Thus we can see that the highest amount of a paycheck owed to child support is by those who have no pay, followed by those earn under 10.000 annually at 83 percent of their paycheck.
Life itself presents challenges for low-income families who mainly live pay check to pay check with little or no savings for emergencies. Litigation and court costs also cost large amounts of money, which is usually not factored into the child support formula. For what ever reason many child support fathers in low-income families may fail to meet their child support obligations. This leads to fines, garnishment of wages, seizure of tax returns, seizure of bank accounts, and jail.
When a father cannot meet his child support and/or pay his fines, he goes to jail. The child support payments debt continues to accrue while the father is earning .23 cents per hour to 1.50 an hour.(Luden, From Deadbeat to dead broke) Many fathers lose their jobs when they go to jail, and the earnings that come with them. When they get out of jail they now owe a much larger debt to their children and the state, with no way to pay it. They now have a police record, and many employers will no longer hire them. All medical benefits, retirement benefits, and dental benefits are lost for both the father, and the children. Many fathers are then sent to jail again due to their debt for child support and their debt to the state for fines. Again more fines are added, child support debt increases, yet the children receive no benefits. The father then goes to jail again, and the cycle repeats.
Many low-income fathers feel a sense of hopelessness and despair when in this cycle which can lead to very dire circumstances. The New York Times reported on the case of Walter L. Scott, a father who fell into this cycle of child support debt and jail in South Carolina. His brother Anthony described his apathy and despair as:
“Every job he has had, he has gotten fired from because he went to jail because he was locked up for child support,” said Mr. Scott, whose brother was working as a forklift operator when he died. “He got to the point where he felt like it defeated the purpose.” (Robles).
Mr. Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light later. Fearing he might again lose his job, and go back to jail, due to a warrant issued for 18,000 dollars of debt caused by child support and state fines. He resisted arrest and fled, being tazered by the officer. Mr. Scott, even though tazered, continued to flee. The officer shot him 8 times in the back with his service weapon after tazing him and killed him. The officer then attempted to frame Mr. Scott by placing the Tazer next to his body, even though when he died it was over 20 to 40 feet away. The officer was charged with murder. Mr. Scott's case shows how the cycle of debt and prison, leaves many low-income fathers to believe they can never end the cycle, and shows the dangers this cycle can cause. (Robles and Dewan).
Low-income fathers who do not pay child support are thought by the state system as being in jail voluntarily, that is they chose not to pay child support. This is the logic used to allow the fines and child support to continue while they are in jail. The Washington Post describes this dilemma:
“Of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States, about half are parents, and at least 1 in 5 has a child support obligation. For most, the debt will keep piling up throughout their imprisonment: By law or by practice, child support agencies in much of the country consider incarceration a form of “voluntary impoverishment.” (Hager).
Because many low-income mothers are not receiving child support from fathers due to jail and fines, they go on welfare. Once a mother goes on welfare her owed child support no longer goes to her children, but to the state to pay for her welfare payments. (Today). Thus the money collected for child support is no longer for the children of the father, but for the payment of welfare to the state. Who owes the most in child support by income bracket? The poor as shown below:
(Luden,From Deadbeat to dead broke).
How can we end this cycle? President Obama has directed states to change this policy by changing this to the reality that most low-income fathers have no choice or means to pay their child support, and thus are jailed in-voluntarily. With this change of policy in states, fathers may not be fined or incur child support debt while in prison. President Obama also wants states to begin training fathers for better jobs so they can pay their child support. The Federal Government would supply 35 million for low-income fathers training, to help pay the current 113 billion dollars owed in child support and state fines, with better jobs. President Obama believes that this strategy will help to augment the 113 billion dollars and lower the costs to the states. (Wolf).
Paul Ryan, Republican, Speaker of the house has been very adamant about blocking this new law which will go into effect in 2017. He and the House Ways and Means Committee believe that more mothers will go on welfare, which they are in charge of, if low-income fathers are allowed to pause their child-support payments while in prison. They state the debt incurred by this new law, will only increase the debt owed to mothers and children. (Wolf).
The reality is that currently very little of the money that is collected, goes to mothers and children of low-income families. This cycle as we can see is costly to the families and the government, we are currently collecting very little, and the debt to states and children continues to grow at an alarming rate. The cycle benefits very few, and cost families very much.
(Hager).
Thus we can see above that the amount coming in 7.6 billion, does little for either the state, or mothers and children that are still owed 112.5 billion dollars. The money recovered for child-support low-income families that go on welfare, receive no child-support payment money from the father.
Add to this the cost of keeping a person in jail which according to Michael Jacobsen a Prison Expert who ran the New York State Prison and Probation departments in the 1990's is an average of 31,000 dollars plus, to 60,000 in some states. The United States of America has over 2.4 million people in jail. This is the largest amount of people incarcerated by any country in the world. Out of those 2.4 million in jail, 1 out of 5 owes child-support. (CBSNews.com) Thus we can see that the current system is not collecting enough debt owed, is adding more debt to society, and does not benefit low-income children and mothers who are owed the most.
Because the low-income father has chosen to go to prison according to many states, he is not given counsel when being arrested or tried for not paying child-support. The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Turner (a low-income father) and Rogers (a low-income mother owed child-support) in South-Carolina. The state said that neither the father nor the mother were entitled to state sponsored legal defense, and that they needed to provide their own counsel at their expense. Turner who was behind in child-support was placed into jail for 12 months. His child-support and fines grew over that time period and he new that soon he would be in jail again. The Supreme Court granted his certiorari request upon the grounds he was not given counsel at his trial. The Supreme Court stated that South-Carolina's claim that Mr. Turners claims were now moot as he had served his time, were not accepted by the Court; and the Court found that Turner was being jailed not because he chose not to pay child-support, but because he was in contempt of the courts child-support ruling, and he was placed in jail under a civil hearing. Thus because he was not being charged with none payment, and was charged with contempt , he was entitled to counsel which was not given. The Supreme court pointed out that the state was jailing Mr. Turner for money owed, but the reason he owed money was because he was in jail. They further stated that he was denied due process due to these fines and debts, which was not the reason the state gave for his being denied counsel. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision found that counsel should have been appointed and remanded the case back to South-Carolina. (Turner, Lexis).
Many states like Florida are trying to end this cycle by having low-income fathers who are about to be jailed for not paying child-support, file for a modification of their child-support before or as soon as possible after incarceration occurs. The state of Florida attempted to allow a modification for the future of child-support payments, but will not allow modification of past owed child-support.(Solaris Legal). The State Supreme court reviewed this process in Department of Revenue vs Jackson and Tillery: 846 So. 2d 486; (2003) , which asked for modifications to existing child-support based on their prison salaries. The lower court stated they had a better method to protect mothers and children who were owed the debt by placing the debt in abeyance. Thus the fines would not be charged while the low-income fathers were in prison, but would be added to a later bill that could be sued for in another hearing at a later date. This lower court did not change the child-support past obligations, or change the amount to be paid while the father was in prison, using the previous income from the first child-support ordered payments before the father could not pay. The idea being that a new court trial would allow the father to pay a lesser amount over time to stay out of prison, and hopefully in the long haul pay the debt owed to the state and families. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed this decision and stated that no modifications to past child-support payments could be made because a person went to prison. Thus modifications of past child-support could not be modified or held in abeyance. (Jackson vs Tillery Lexis).
Conclusions:
The lower 40 percent in the income bracket of the United States of America pay the most per paycheck, and owe the most in child-support. As of 2013, 76 percent of child-support is owed by those who earn 10,000.00 dollars or less. One out of five inmates owe child-support and fines to the state and families. The debt for child-support to the nation is over 133 billion dollars, and out of that 7.6 billion is being paid annually. 28.5 billion is owed to the states, and 84 billion is owed to mothers and children. The class distinction between the poor and the rich is getting larger, with the rich owning 89 percent of the wealth of the country, and 0.3 percent being owned by low-income families.. The current system of placing low-income fathers in prison for civil disobedience increases all of these costs, to all parties, and removes the father from the family. Child-support owed to a mother and children on Medicare and in some cases Medicaid, do not receive the child-support money that fathers are being incarcerated for. Instead the state takes that money to off set the cost of the mother and family to the state welfare program.
While there are a few states that are beginning to modify future child-support payments when they enter prison, most do not, and none-currently allow modification on past support due. For many low-income fathers who lose their jobs for going to jail, then receive a police record, which in turn prevents in many cases any good future employment opportunities; the initial cost of the child-support payments that drove them to jail, will ensure that they return their again, unless some outside help is made available.
The Supreme Court has stated that is illegal to withhold public counsel due to the ability of not being able to pay and then place a person in jail, even under a civil suit, but many states still do this. President Obama is trying to end the cycle by modifying past and future payments of fathers who have been proven to be trying to pay, but cannot due to state fines, debts to family, and jail. In 2017 President Obama's new policy will go into effect reversing the policy of a person being seen as voluntarily going to jail due to his choice to be in contempt of a court ordered child-support order, to being involuntarily held in prison because they do not have the means to pay. President Obama's plan may bring the first real attempts by government to end this cycle of debt for the country, the state, and the families owed child-support. His plan may help the low-income fathers to have hope and become an attribute to their families and children, changing the current hopelessness and despair that many who owe child-support feel today.
Personal Note:
Anger and Politics in our recent past have seemed to replace common sense and budgeting in America. While it is understandable that mothers who must raise children on their own feel little compassion for fathers who cannot pay court-ordered child-support; and that tax payers see low-income fathers as needing to pay their debt to society, on an emotional level, it does not change the fact that for many they will never see the dollars from any payments made if they use current federal and state low-income programs to help them. We need to start using our heads more than our hearts when it comes to this problem.
The debt is growing, the poor are getting poorer, they are not being legally represented, and they are incarcerated civilly so they must pay state fines and accrued child-support upon release. The system is not working currently, and unless we support changes that are being made like the State of Florida and President Obama are trying to do, then the poor will keep getting poorer, more people will go to jail, costing tax payers more, and the family is made to suffer the most, and get paid the least or not at all.
For low-income fathers fear, despair, and in some cases death, is all they will receive from a program that is trying to get to families the money owed, and yet failing so miserably. We must end this cycle, or all Americans will continue to pay the price, and more so for the mothers and children who pay the price of poverty every day.
Sources:
CBS News, The cost of a nation of incarceration (https://www.facebook.com/CBSSunday Apr. 23, 2012), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-cost-of-a-nation-of-incarceration/.
Department of Revenue vs Jackson and Tillery: 846 So. 2d 486; (2003) LEXIS
Jackson vs
Nicholas Fitz, Economic inequality: It’s far worse than you think (Scientific American 2016), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/.
Eli Hager, For Men in Prison, Child Support Becomes a Crushing Debt, Washington Post, Oct. 18, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-men-in-prison-child-support-becomes-a-crushing-debt/2015/10/18/e751a324-5bb7-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html.
Jennifer Ludden, From Deadbeat to dead broke: The ‘why’ behind unpaid child support (NPR.org Nov. 19, 2015), http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456352554/from-deadbeat-to-dead-broke-the-why-behind-unpaid-child-support.
Jennifer Ludden, Some states are cutting poor Dads A deal on unpaid child support (NPR.org Nov. 20, 2015), http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456353691/some-states-are-cutting-poor-dads-a-deal-on-unpaid-child-support.
Frances Robles and Shaila Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, U.S., Apr. 20, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html?_r=0.
TODAY, Rule Could Leave Poor, Delinquent Dads with No Income, Feb. 27, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-27/poor-dads-child-support/53267548/1.
Connor D. Wolf, House Republicans move to stop dangerous child support rule (The Daily Caller Jun. 9, 2015), http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/house-republicans-move-to-stop-dangerous-child-support-rule/.
CHRIS GENTRY
There is a large and growing distance between those who are rich, and those who are poor. According to Scientific American Magazine the top 20% percent in income own 89% of the wealth in America; and the lower income which is 40%, receive 0.3% of America's wealth (Hager).
One of the symptoms of this growing gap is being seen by low income families in the growing problem of poor fathers owing child support that they cannot pay. Children of many lower income families are not receiving the benefits of having a father in their lives, or the paychecks and support that comes with them; because their fathers are in prison for not paying child support.
The cycle of debt, can begin with a judge who gives a father a child support payment that is unrealistic compared to the net profit of the father. Many judges require child care payments even if the father is making no income at all. Most poor fathers paying child support, end up paying the most from their paychecks as the chart below indicates:
(Luden, Some states are cutting poor Dads A deal on unpaid child support). Thus we can see that the highest amount of a paycheck owed to child support is by those who have no pay, followed by those earn under 10.000 annually at 83 percent of their paycheck.
Life itself presents challenges for low-income families who mainly live pay check to pay check with little or no savings for emergencies. Litigation and court costs also cost large amounts of money, which is usually not factored into the child support formula. For what ever reason many child support fathers in low-income families may fail to meet their child support obligations. This leads to fines, garnishment of wages, seizure of tax returns, seizure of bank accounts, and jail.
When a father cannot meet his child support and/or pay his fines, he goes to jail. The child support payments debt continues to accrue while the father is earning .23 cents per hour to 1.50 an hour.(Luden, From Deadbeat to dead broke) Many fathers lose their jobs when they go to jail, and the earnings that come with them. When they get out of jail they now owe a much larger debt to their children and the state, with no way to pay it. They now have a police record, and many employers will no longer hire them. All medical benefits, retirement benefits, and dental benefits are lost for both the father, and the children. Many fathers are then sent to jail again due to their debt for child support and their debt to the state for fines. Again more fines are added, child support debt increases, yet the children receive no benefits. The father then goes to jail again, and the cycle repeats.
Many low-income fathers feel a sense of hopelessness and despair when in this cycle which can lead to very dire circumstances. The New York Times reported on the case of Walter L. Scott, a father who fell into this cycle of child support debt and jail in South Carolina. His brother Anthony described his apathy and despair as:
“Every job he has had, he has gotten fired from because he went to jail because he was locked up for child support,” said Mr. Scott, whose brother was working as a forklift operator when he died. “He got to the point where he felt like it defeated the purpose.” (Robles).
Mr. Scott was pulled over for a broken tail light later. Fearing he might again lose his job, and go back to jail, due to a warrant issued for 18,000 dollars of debt caused by child support and state fines. He resisted arrest and fled, being tazered by the officer. Mr. Scott, even though tazered, continued to flee. The officer shot him 8 times in the back with his service weapon after tazing him and killed him. The officer then attempted to frame Mr. Scott by placing the Tazer next to his body, even though when he died it was over 20 to 40 feet away. The officer was charged with murder. Mr. Scott's case shows how the cycle of debt and prison, leaves many low-income fathers to believe they can never end the cycle, and shows the dangers this cycle can cause. (Robles and Dewan).
Low-income fathers who do not pay child support are thought by the state system as being in jail voluntarily, that is they chose not to pay child support. This is the logic used to allow the fines and child support to continue while they are in jail. The Washington Post describes this dilemma:
“Of the 2.2 million people incarcerated in the United States, about half are parents, and at least 1 in 5 has a child support obligation. For most, the debt will keep piling up throughout their imprisonment: By law or by practice, child support agencies in much of the country consider incarceration a form of “voluntary impoverishment.” (Hager).
Because many low-income mothers are not receiving child support from fathers due to jail and fines, they go on welfare. Once a mother goes on welfare her owed child support no longer goes to her children, but to the state to pay for her welfare payments. (Today). Thus the money collected for child support is no longer for the children of the father, but for the payment of welfare to the state. Who owes the most in child support by income bracket? The poor as shown below:
(Luden,From Deadbeat to dead broke).
How can we end this cycle? President Obama has directed states to change this policy by changing this to the reality that most low-income fathers have no choice or means to pay their child support, and thus are jailed in-voluntarily. With this change of policy in states, fathers may not be fined or incur child support debt while in prison. President Obama also wants states to begin training fathers for better jobs so they can pay their child support. The Federal Government would supply 35 million for low-income fathers training, to help pay the current 113 billion dollars owed in child support and state fines, with better jobs. President Obama believes that this strategy will help to augment the 113 billion dollars and lower the costs to the states. (Wolf).
Paul Ryan, Republican, Speaker of the house has been very adamant about blocking this new law which will go into effect in 2017. He and the House Ways and Means Committee believe that more mothers will go on welfare, which they are in charge of, if low-income fathers are allowed to pause their child-support payments while in prison. They state the debt incurred by this new law, will only increase the debt owed to mothers and children. (Wolf).
The reality is that currently very little of the money that is collected, goes to mothers and children of low-income families. This cycle as we can see is costly to the families and the government, we are currently collecting very little, and the debt to states and children continues to grow at an alarming rate. The cycle benefits very few, and cost families very much.
(Hager).
Thus we can see above that the amount coming in 7.6 billion, does little for either the state, or mothers and children that are still owed 112.5 billion dollars. The money recovered for child-support low-income families that go on welfare, receive no child-support payment money from the father.
Add to this the cost of keeping a person in jail which according to Michael Jacobsen a Prison Expert who ran the New York State Prison and Probation departments in the 1990's is an average of 31,000 dollars plus, to 60,000 in some states. The United States of America has over 2.4 million people in jail. This is the largest amount of people incarcerated by any country in the world. Out of those 2.4 million in jail, 1 out of 5 owes child-support. (CBSNews.com) Thus we can see that the current system is not collecting enough debt owed, is adding more debt to society, and does not benefit low-income children and mothers who are owed the most.
Because the low-income father has chosen to go to prison according to many states, he is not given counsel when being arrested or tried for not paying child-support. The Supreme Court reviewed the case of Turner (a low-income father) and Rogers (a low-income mother owed child-support) in South-Carolina. The state said that neither the father nor the mother were entitled to state sponsored legal defense, and that they needed to provide their own counsel at their expense. Turner who was behind in child-support was placed into jail for 12 months. His child-support and fines grew over that time period and he new that soon he would be in jail again. The Supreme Court granted his certiorari request upon the grounds he was not given counsel at his trial. The Supreme Court stated that South-Carolina's claim that Mr. Turners claims were now moot as he had served his time, were not accepted by the Court; and the Court found that Turner was being jailed not because he chose not to pay child-support, but because he was in contempt of the courts child-support ruling, and he was placed in jail under a civil hearing. Thus because he was not being charged with none payment, and was charged with contempt , he was entitled to counsel which was not given. The Supreme court pointed out that the state was jailing Mr. Turner for money owed, but the reason he owed money was because he was in jail. They further stated that he was denied due process due to these fines and debts, which was not the reason the state gave for his being denied counsel. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision found that counsel should have been appointed and remanded the case back to South-Carolina. (Turner, Lexis).
Many states like Florida are trying to end this cycle by having low-income fathers who are about to be jailed for not paying child-support, file for a modification of their child-support before or as soon as possible after incarceration occurs. The state of Florida attempted to allow a modification for the future of child-support payments, but will not allow modification of past owed child-support.(Solaris Legal). The State Supreme court reviewed this process in Department of Revenue vs Jackson and Tillery: 846 So. 2d 486; (2003) , which asked for modifications to existing child-support based on their prison salaries. The lower court stated they had a better method to protect mothers and children who were owed the debt by placing the debt in abeyance. Thus the fines would not be charged while the low-income fathers were in prison, but would be added to a later bill that could be sued for in another hearing at a later date. This lower court did not change the child-support past obligations, or change the amount to be paid while the father was in prison, using the previous income from the first child-support ordered payments before the father could not pay. The idea being that a new court trial would allow the father to pay a lesser amount over time to stay out of prison, and hopefully in the long haul pay the debt owed to the state and families. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed this decision and stated that no modifications to past child-support payments could be made because a person went to prison. Thus modifications of past child-support could not be modified or held in abeyance. (Jackson vs Tillery Lexis).
Conclusions:
The lower 40 percent in the income bracket of the United States of America pay the most per paycheck, and owe the most in child-support. As of 2013, 76 percent of child-support is owed by those who earn 10,000.00 dollars or less. One out of five inmates owe child-support and fines to the state and families. The debt for child-support to the nation is over 133 billion dollars, and out of that 7.6 billion is being paid annually. 28.5 billion is owed to the states, and 84 billion is owed to mothers and children. The class distinction between the poor and the rich is getting larger, with the rich owning 89 percent of the wealth of the country, and 0.3 percent being owned by low-income families.. The current system of placing low-income fathers in prison for civil disobedience increases all of these costs, to all parties, and removes the father from the family. Child-support owed to a mother and children on Medicare and in some cases Medicaid, do not receive the child-support money that fathers are being incarcerated for. Instead the state takes that money to off set the cost of the mother and family to the state welfare program.
While there are a few states that are beginning to modify future child-support payments when they enter prison, most do not, and none-currently allow modification on past support due. For many low-income fathers who lose their jobs for going to jail, then receive a police record, which in turn prevents in many cases any good future employment opportunities; the initial cost of the child-support payments that drove them to jail, will ensure that they return their again, unless some outside help is made available.
The Supreme Court has stated that is illegal to withhold public counsel due to the ability of not being able to pay and then place a person in jail, even under a civil suit, but many states still do this. President Obama is trying to end the cycle by modifying past and future payments of fathers who have been proven to be trying to pay, but cannot due to state fines, debts to family, and jail. In 2017 President Obama's new policy will go into effect reversing the policy of a person being seen as voluntarily going to jail due to his choice to be in contempt of a court ordered child-support order, to being involuntarily held in prison because they do not have the means to pay. President Obama's plan may bring the first real attempts by government to end this cycle of debt for the country, the state, and the families owed child-support. His plan may help the low-income fathers to have hope and become an attribute to their families and children, changing the current hopelessness and despair that many who owe child-support feel today.
Personal Note:
Anger and Politics in our recent past have seemed to replace common sense and budgeting in America. While it is understandable that mothers who must raise children on their own feel little compassion for fathers who cannot pay court-ordered child-support; and that tax payers see low-income fathers as needing to pay their debt to society, on an emotional level, it does not change the fact that for many they will never see the dollars from any payments made if they use current federal and state low-income programs to help them. We need to start using our heads more than our hearts when it comes to this problem.
The debt is growing, the poor are getting poorer, they are not being legally represented, and they are incarcerated civilly so they must pay state fines and accrued child-support upon release. The system is not working currently, and unless we support changes that are being made like the State of Florida and President Obama are trying to do, then the poor will keep getting poorer, more people will go to jail, costing tax payers more, and the family is made to suffer the most, and get paid the least or not at all.
For low-income fathers fear, despair, and in some cases death, is all they will receive from a program that is trying to get to families the money owed, and yet failing so miserably. We must end this cycle, or all Americans will continue to pay the price, and more so for the mothers and children who pay the price of poverty every day.
Sources:
CBS News, The cost of a nation of incarceration (https://www.facebook.com/CBSSunday Apr. 23, 2012), http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-cost-of-a-nation-of-incarceration/.
Department of Revenue vs Jackson and Tillery: 846 So. 2d 486; (2003) LEXIS
Jackson vs
Nicholas Fitz, Economic inequality: It’s far worse than you think (Scientific American 2016), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/.
Eli Hager, For Men in Prison, Child Support Becomes a Crushing Debt, Washington Post, Oct. 18, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-men-in-prison-child-support-becomes-a-crushing-debt/2015/10/18/e751a324-5bb7-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html.
Jennifer Ludden, From Deadbeat to dead broke: The ‘why’ behind unpaid child support (NPR.org Nov. 19, 2015), http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456352554/from-deadbeat-to-dead-broke-the-why-behind-unpaid-child-support.
Jennifer Ludden, Some states are cutting poor Dads A deal on unpaid child support (NPR.org Nov. 20, 2015), http://www.npr.org/2015/11/20/456353691/some-states-are-cutting-poor-dads-a-deal-on-unpaid-child-support.
Frances Robles and Shaila Dewan, Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat, U.S., Apr. 20, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html?_r=0.
TODAY, Rule Could Leave Poor, Delinquent Dads with No Income, Feb. 27, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-27/poor-dads-child-support/53267548/1.
Connor D. Wolf, House Republicans move to stop dangerous child support rule (The Daily Caller Jun. 9, 2015), http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/house-republicans-move-to-stop-dangerous-child-support-rule/.