Passport rules snag child support cash

[Linzyhop]

Passport rules snag child support cash

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press WriterTue Aug 14, 3:34 PM ET

The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for a U.S. businessman now living in China; $46,000 for a musician seeking to perform overseas, and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation.
The new passport requirements that have complicated travel this summer also have uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions.
The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.
Now that millions of additional travelers need passports to fly back from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and South America, collections under the Passport Denial Program are on pace to about double this year, federal officials told The Associated Press.
In all, states have reported collecting at least $22.5 million through the program thus far in 2007. The money is then forwarded to the parent to whom it is owed.
Some people never learn.
A boxer paid $39,000 in back child support to the state of Nevada last year to get a passport, which he lost. This year, his promoter had to loan him $8,930 so he could pay off his new child support debts and get a new passport to fight overseas.
In one case last year, a man got his parents to pay his overdue child support — $50,498 to the state of Illinois.
"For us, it's been amazing to see how people who owe back child support seem to be able to come up with good chunks of money when it involves needing their passport," said Adolfo Capestany, spokesman for the state of Washington's Division of Child Support. "Folks will do anything to get that passport, so it is a good collection tool."
The $22.5 million reported to have been collected through the program this year is a conservative estimate. Some states voluntarily report the payments to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, but other states don't.
It took all of 2006 to collect the same amount under the program, which began in 1998.
Also contributing to the increased collections was a drop in the threshold for reporting child support debts to the State Department, from $5,000 to $2,500. As a result, 400,000 more cases were submitted to the department.
The state of Washington obtained $24,000 for Teresa Markley through the program. The money accrued over a couple of decades. She said she could have really used the money in past years, and at one point in the 1990s went on welfare for a few months to make ends meet. While her children are now grown, she said the payment still meant a great deal to her.
"What it means to me now is just to have some validation for the suffering I went through," said Markley, a resident of Tacoma, Wash.
Jeannette Dean of Seattle said she had to tap into her retirement savings and her son's savings bond to help pay for basic necessities after Washington state was unable to help her collect delinquent child support payments.
But this year, she received about $36,000 through the passport program. She said the money will be used to replenish the lost savings.
"It has given back to having a normal life versus struggling to pay dental bills and hospitals bills and things like that," Dean said.
The passport denial program is just one of several tools the government has to collect overdue child support. Overall collections totaled about $24 billion last year.
The largest share by far — $20.1 billion — came from withholding from a worker's paycheck. Unemployment insurance or state and federal income tax refunds can also be seized. States with lotteries also can deduct delinquent payments from winnings. Some states submit the names of those behind on their payments to credit reporting agencies.
Payments generated through the new passport requirements are an important sliver of what states collect each year on behalf of about 17 million children, said Margot Bean, commissioner for the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.
"We often get payments of over $100,000," Bean said. "For whatever reason, this was the only way we could get the money."
For some families, the payments can mean the difference between having to rely on the government for assistance or not relying on it, Bean said. In cases where families have needed cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, a portion of the payments received through the passport program is used to reimburse the government.
Another jump in collections from the Passport Denial Program can be expected next year or in early 2009. That's when the new passport requirements will likely take effect for land and sea travelers too.
___
On the Net:
Passport Denial Program: FPLS - Passport Denial Program

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. I've had a few friends with dead beat dads that wouldn't pay child support... although usually those "dads" didn't have enough money after drinking and drugs to even pay anyhow, let alone go abroad......

[Phantom]

In cases where families have needed cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, a portion of the payments received through the passport program is used to reimburse the government.

I like this idea part.


I don't think handing over 5 or 6 figure sums all at once is really a good idea though. The parent receiving the support is more likely to buy themselves a new car or vacation than spend the money on the child in that instance.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I like this idea part.


I don't think handing over 5 or 6 figure sums all at once is really a good idea though. The parent receiving the support is more likely to buy themselves a new car or vacation than spend the money on the child in that instance.

that's because they haven't been able to do any of the other things they would have done had they gotten the money when they were supposed to. they had to scrape to make ends meet and the money is owed to them. what they do with it is their business.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

that's because they haven't been able to do any of the other things they would have done had they gotten the money when they were supposed to. they had to scrape to make ends meet and the money is owed to them. what they do with it is their business.

Legally speaking your last sentence is entirely incorrect. Child Support payments are legally required to be spent only on the child.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I like this idea part.


I don't think handing over 5 or 6 figure sums all at once is really a good idea though. The parent receiving the support is more likely to buy themselves a new car or vacation than spend the money on the child in that instance.

Mmm. Just what we need. The government telling people they are too irresponsible to get THEIR money back the government will decide how much you get and when.

Bad fucking idea.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Publius

Legally speaking your last sentence is entirely incorrect. Child Support payments are legally required to be spent only on the child.

no actually because they're "back payments". they already spent most of their original money on the child and had to forgo things they would have gotten for themselves if the child payments had been on time. perhaps a new(er) car to replace the one that kept breaking down. Perhaps a vacation with child to disney world. if they want to do these things now that they have the money, that is their business.

[WickedLou9]

I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma's car crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV, any given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was supposed to buy ya shorty Tyco with ya money
She went to the doctor got lipo with ya money
She walkin' around lookin' like Michael with ya money
Shoulda' got that insured, GEICO for ya moneeey

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

I think this is actually a pretty good idea. I've had a few friends with dead beat dads that wouldn't pay child support... although usually those "dads" didn't have enough money after drinking and drugs to even pay anyhow, let alone go abroad......

It seems like a good method of retrieving the money, but I disagree with forced child support (beyond agreements) anyway.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

It seems like a good method of retrieving the money, but I disagree with forced child support (beyond agreements) anyway.

um, child support is forced usually because most guys who would get the girl pregnant and take off would need to be forced to pay their part.

of course there are very decent guys out there who would step up, but more often than not, it's the first example.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um, child support is forced usually because most guys who would get the girl pregnant and take off would need to be forced to pay their part.

of course there are very decent guys out there who would step up, but more often than not, it's the first example.

I realise why it is in place, and it should exist ig both people want to raise a child and then later recant support.

If, however the father does not want to raise a child, then if the woman wishes to raise it anyway, they should should have to do so off thier own resources. I simply don't support the concept that having sex means automatically supporting any decision made thereafter.

There is a big difference between sex and raising a family.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I realise why it is in place, and it should exist ig both people want to raise a child and then later recant support.

If, however the father does not want to raise a child, then if the woman wishes to raise it anyway, they should should have to do so off thier own resources. I simply don't support the concept that having sex means automatically supporting any decision made thereafter.

There is a big difference between sex and raising a family.

it's called being responsible for your actions.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

it's called being responsible for your actions.

It seems to me if a woman, on her own, has a baby and wants to raise it herself (not give up for adoption), she is responsible for that situation.

The idea of child support only makes sense in the cases where the parents agreed to have a baby together and things didn't work out. Otherwise, the woman is really 100% responsible for her situation and shouldn't have any basis for asking for help beyond giving the child up for adoption or getting an abortion.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It seems to me if a woman, on her own, has a baby and wants to raise it herself (not give up for adoption), she is responsible for that situation.

The idea of child support only makes sense in the cases where the parents agreed to have a baby together and things didn't work out. Otherwise, the woman is really 100% responsible for her situation and shouldn't have any basis for asking for help beyond giving the child up for adoption or getting an abortion.

no, not really because not everyone believes in abortion. and just because it's the women who has to carry the baby, it's automatically the woman's fault or choice to keep the baby.

it takes two to tango.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

it's called being responsible for your actions.

That does not mean you are also responsible for other people's choices. As far as I am concerned if someone chooses to raise a child, agaisnt the wishes of the father, they should should the responsiiblity of that choice themselves, it is perfectly reasonable.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

no, not really because not everyone believes in abortion. and just because it's the women who has to carry the baby, it's automatically the woman's fault or choice to keep the baby.

it takes two to tango.

I don't really care what someon's personal beliefs are, that shouldn't factor into responsibility.

You said it a women can choose to have sex, carry a child, and to keep it and not adopt it out, yet a man should be responsible for all those choices even though he only makes a the choice to have sex? I completely disagree with the concept.

People should be responsible for the choices they make, including women when they choose to raise a child without support.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't really care what someon's personal beliefs are, that shouldn't factor into responsibility.

You said it a women can choose to have sex, carry a child, and to keep it and not adopt it out, yet a man should be responsible for all those choices even though he only makes a the choice to have sex? I completely disagree with the concept.

People should be responsible for the choices they make, including women when they choose to raise a child without support.

so what would happen if the father's beliefs stated an abortion was "against god" and wanted the mother to have the baby, but the mother didn't want to. is it up to the father then to do something since he created this baby?

if you're going to have sex, two people should have the responsibility of having and providing for that baby.

abortion should only be necessary in cases of rape or where the child is severly handicapped or where the birth is going to be life/death for the mother.

just because someone doesn't want it is not a good enough excuse for me.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

so what would happen if the father's beliefs stated an abortion was "against god" and wanted the mother to have the baby, but the mother didn't want to. is it up to the father then to do something since he created this baby?

Of course not, you can only make decision for yourself, not others.

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

if you're going to have sex, two people should have the responsibility of having and providing for that baby.

I disagree, if you decide to raise a child then those that make that decision should also provide. I fail to see why having sex automatically means you should be held responsible for subsequent decisions unless you have indicated you will.

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

abortion should only be necessary in cases of rape or where the child is severly handicapped or where the birth is going to be life/death for the mother.

It is a personal decision, but there are always other options.

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

just because someone doesn't want it is not a good enough excuse for me.

What is the difference between a man not wanting to raise a child, and a woman wanting to (rather than abortion or adoption). Both are what someone wants or does not want to do.

There are circumstances where support should be required, but not simply because the woman wants to raise the child. Certainly they have every right to raise a child if they so choose, or not, but to compel another to support that is an entirely different thing.

The way I see it:

Both parties decide to have sex, but they disagree on raising a child.

A woman does not believe in / want an abortion / adoption, this is fair enough but why should a man have to support this? Because he had sex? Because the reverse does not apply, it isn't a fair position and thus I cannot support it

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Kytro

A woman does not believe in / want an abortion / adoption, this is fair enough but why should a man have to support this? Because he had sex? Because the reverse does not apply, it isn't a fair position and thus I cannot support it

well, that's where we disagree. fortunately for the rest of the world, the law agrees with me.

[motivez]