# The DOJ Letter and Child Support Enforcement

- Link: https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-doj-letter-and-child-support-enforcement/
- Published: 2024-05-06T14:23:35+00:00
- Author: MsRockMon

June 28, 2016

 [⌊\"\"⌉](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-doj-letter-and-child-support-enforcement/\"https://wp.me/pccUCI-oOh\")

 

Kenya N Rahmaan 

The United States Department of Justice of ‘The Department’ has recently released
a detailed letter outlining the injustices that have been applied towards the economically
less fortunate citizens of the United States.  According to Vanita Gupta and Lisa
Foster of the Civil Rights Division and the Office for Access to Justice, respectively,
the letter is intended to address some of the most common practices that have run
afoul of the United States Constitution.  Unsurprising to some child support reform
advocates, many of the constitutional violations are directly related to the punishments
related to owing child support debt.  These outlined desecrations are ones that 
have been objected to by those fighting for reform and equal protections for those
entangled in child support cases across the nation. 

 

 

In recent years, increased attention has been paid to the illegal enforcement of
fines and fees in certain jurisdictions around the country (Gupta and Foster, 2016).
One could argue, quite effectively, that these violations have been common practice
for a lot longer than ‘recent years’ and that child support enforcement punishments
are not only illegal but unconstitutional.  The people in charge have chosen to 
ignore these violations successfully, at least until now. Even though this report
has been released and contains clear and concise opposition to many of the practices
executed against low-income debtors, the unconstitutional activities continue across
the nation.

 

 

The Letter identifies seven specific items, described by Gupta and Foster (2016)
as a set of fundamental constitutional principles relevant to enforcing fines and
fees.  However, specific attention should be paid to those principles that address
violations within child support enforcement.  To begin, the Department of Justice(
DOJ) addresses the incarceration of people when they are indigent and cannot afford
the overstated fines and monetary penalties.  Based on writings in the letter, courts
must not incarcerate a person for nonpayment of fees and fees without conducting
an indigency determination (Gupta & Fisher, 2016).

 

 

There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of cases involving people being incarcerated
due to owing a child support debt even though it had not been proven that he or 
she has ‘willfully’ failed to pay the debt.   There is a specific protocol that 
must be followed before arrest warrants are issued.  Unfortunately, when child support‘
deadbeat’ roundups are executed upon parents (some non-parents), there is seldom
any mention of the financial status of the arrested party or if there was an indigency
hearing conducted before sentencing.   For example, since the DOJ published the 
letter on March 14, 2016, there have been at least ten child support arrests (and
counting) made across the nation. 

 

 

This letter will undoubtedly increase as states continue to pursue alleged child
support debtors.  Four days after the DOJ letter was published, Coffee County, Alabama,
made its annual child support arrest raid upon parents who may or may not be financially
capable of fulfilling their child support obligation and the arrears.  According
to Valencia Jones of DothanFirst.com (2016), they (Coffee County and State authorities)
issued 70 warrants before knocking on doors and making several arrests.  There are
processes in place that seem to be omitted from these raids. 

 

 

For instance, Scott Byrd of the Coffee County Sheriff’s office spoke about the unexpectedness
of the roundups, stating that “these people don’t know we’re coming” (Jones, 2016).
This statement directly contradicts principles discussed by the DOJ and the due 
process statutes that must be followed for such warrants and arrests to be legal
and constitutional.  In the Bearden v. Georgia decision in 1983, it was decided 
that the due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment
prohibit “punishing a person for his poverty ” (Gupta & Foster, 2016).  As has been
proven in many child support cases that have ended in arrests, most people detained
are not criminals. 

 

 

They are just poor.  More proof is provided when comparing the low amount of child
support collected due to the child support raids to the amount due.  The circuit
collects about five million dollars in child support annually (Jones, 2016).  However,
a mere $30,000 may be the bounty collected after child support busts, and this is
only an average.  This amount can decrease based on how poor the arrestee is and
how he or she can produce the money needed to purchase their freedom.

 

 

To further expose the illegalities surrounding child support arrests, it must be
discussed that the many people who are arrested are held until the child support
debt has been paid in full.  These prisoners are not granted indigency hearings 
but are instead held in jail because they are poor.  For example, as recently as
December 2015, Georgia conducted a raid dubbed ‘Operation Deadbeat Parents,’ which
resulted in 10 arrests.  According to Nathalie Pozo of Fox 5 (2015), the parents
arrested must pay a “purge amount” to get out of jail. 

 

 

The law definition is fundamental for those unfamiliar with how purge amounts work
in obtaining freedom from incarceration.  The purge amount is money that must be
paid toward child support arrears to avoid going to jail for contempt of support
order (USLegal.com).  The definition does not explain the need for indigency hearings
or that the court must prove that a person has “willfully” failed to pay support.
This, too, by definition, is a basic component of the child support guidelines, 
which, if violated, can mean a lengthy prison sentence in most states. 

 

 

Releasing parents only after a purge amount has been paid without an indigency hearing
contradicts the DOJ letter because to do otherwise would deprive the probationer
of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot
pay the fine (Gupta & Foster, 2016).  To provide further evidence of the unconstitutional
actions of government officials who are charged with operating the child support
system, one must look at the state of Georgia.  One action (among many) cannot be
ignored in reference to the ‘deadbeat’ arrests made in 2015.  Deputies said money
goes directly to the child or children (Pozo, 2015).

 

 

This can be quickly disproven simply by identifying the state\’s child support pass-
through laws and following the money. According to Michelle Vinson and Vicki Turetsky
of the Center for Law and Social Policy or CLASP (2009), Georgia passes through 
and disregards some or all support for purposes of fill-the-gap budgeting. There
has been no cause to utilize fill-the-gap budgeting during the past five years since
zero dollars have been passed through to the most vulnerable Peach State families
receiving public benefits. 

 

 

Not only are non-custodial parents being robbed of their freedom and extorted without
due process protections, but custodial parents are being robbed of the payments 
made supposedly for the children.  The only beneficiary of the child support system
is the government, when low and no income are the reasons someone may become delinquent
on child support payments.  One of the following principles outlined in the letter
from the DOJ describes violations when arrest warrants and license suspensions are
used to collect child support payments.  According to  Gupta & Foster (2016), courts
must not use arrest warrants or license suspensions as a means of coercing the payment
of court debt when individuals have not been afforded constitutionally adequate 
procedural protections. 

 

 

Since license suspensions are often applied as punishment for people who are delinquent
on child support payments, it is critical that those affected are granted their 
constitutional rights and protections during the process.  While there are thousands
of examples of due process violations during child support arrests based on the 
failure of judges to conduct indigency hearings before, during, and after ‘deadbeat’
roundups are conducted, it is essential to explore the violations related to driver’s
license suspensions.   Section 466(a)(16) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §
666(a)(16)) mandates that states have in effect laws that require the state to have“
procedures under which the state has (and uses in appropriate cases) authority to
withhold or suspend or restrict the use of drivers’ licenses, (Carmen Solomon-Fears,
2011).  And, of course, all states follow the law by having strict criteria to trigger
a driver’s (and other) license suspension. 

 

 

The criteria outlined in the law clarify the need for a certain amount of arrears
to be owed and a specific length of time the debt has been outstanding before a 
license can be suspended.  In West Virginia, Alabama, and Washington State, a person
must be at least six months behind on payments before his/her license is suspended.
Other states, such as Texas and Virginia, shorten a person has time before their
license is suspended by three months.  Even more unbelievable is that the state 
of California will initiate suspension procedures after only 30 days of delinquency.

 

 

Remarkably, some states reduce the time even more when suspending licenses.  The
National Conference of State Legislators or NCSL (2014) shared that in Florida, 
a driver’s license or vehicle registration will be suspended when the obligor is
15 days delinquent in making a payment.  Due to the time restrictions, specific 
issues arise about due process requirements.  Grupta and Fisher (2016) report in
the DOJ letter that if a defendant’s driver’s license is suspended because of failure
to pay a fine, such a suspension may be unlawful if the defendant is deprived of
his due process right to establish inability to pay. 

 

 

Based on the number of child support and other civil cases that may result in license
suspensions, the likelihood that a person has been given proper notification and
granted a hearing to determine his or her financial status is unlikely.  Only a 
handful of states address, all-be-it vaguely, the right to a hearing for a judge
to decide if a person can afford the payments before a license is suspended.  The
statute in Vermont states that the obligor has 21 days after notification to either
contest the claimed delinquency or request an opportunity to present evidence relating
to the noncompliance (NCSL, 2014).  The remainder of the nation, except for Washington,
D.C., fails to include any rights to indigency hearings to determine a citizen\’
s financial status prior to the license suspension.

 

 

DC, gov, the official government website for the district, states that cases with
arrears are submitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) when no payments
have been received within 60 days.  The DOJ letter cites research that has found
that having a driver’s license can be crucial to individuals’ ability to maintain
a job, pursue educational opportunities, and care for families (Grupts & Fisher,
2016).  And yet, there has been no mention of removing license suspensions as a 
means to punish parents who are delinquent in child support payments and/or owe 
arrears.  As of May 12, 2016, Google searches have recovered a limited number of
states recognizing and implementing due process requirements before suspending licenses
as punishment for owing child support debt. 

 

 

Florida outlines the notification procedures and suspension process but only for
non-IV-D (non-TANF) cases.  On the other hand, Utah is very specific in the license
suspension process and does not specify if the suspension criteria are based on 
any particular status.  According to the Utah Department of Administrative Services(
2016), once the obligor has been personally served, s(he) has thirty days to respond
to the Notice of Agency Action (NAA) and request an informal adjudicative hearing
with the Office of Recover/Child Support Services (ORS/CSS). 

 

 

However, The office does not address any procedures adopted to determine a person’s
financial ability to pay child support and arrears.  The state only addressed the
possibility of a repayment plan to restore driver’s licenses and how the license
will remain suspended if money is not paid.  These processes violated the commitment
promised by the DOJ to help ensure that citizens receive equal justice and due process
when faced with driver’s license suspensions.   The next suggestion offered by the
letter from the DOJ representatives is about bond and bail amounts as they relate
to prohibiting poor people from being released from jail in exchange for money. 

 

 

To be clear, bail is a bond payment for a defendant’s release from jail before court
proceedings (Council of Economic Advisors Issue Brief, 2015).  The defendant is 
released once bail has been paid, as long as s(he) follows the terms of the bail
conditions.   In most states, regardless of conviction, bail is fully refunded minus
any accrued fees owed to the court or bail bonds person (if the arrested must use
one to purchase temporary freedom).   This is not true for contempt of court child
support cases. 

 

 

Even though the DOJ does not identify bail and bond practices related to child support
cases, the letter\’s authors are clear about the violations when a defendant is 
indigent and held on child support contempt of court charges. Gupta and Foster (
2016) write that when indigent defendants are arrested for failure to make payments
they cannot afford, they can be subjected to another independent violation of their
rights.  This violation occurs across the country as more and more parents (some
non-biological) are incarcerated for undetermined lengths of time simply for being
unable to pay the arrears.  These citizens are subject to prolonged detention due
to unlawful bail and bond practices.  The terminology associated with bail is different(
as with many other components) when addressing child support issues and guidelines.

 

 

For instance, the amount needed to temporarily purchase one’s freedom is referred
to as a purge instead of a bail amount.  According to Kaylee Remington of the Morning
Journal (2014), a child support purge is a court-ordered amount of money that must
go towards child support to avoid going to jail. The most incredible difference 
between bail and a purge is that the money paid to secure freedom is non-refundable
in purge cases.  This means that when a person cannot afford to pay arrears and 
is subsequently incarcerated due to failure to pay s(he), essentially becomes a 
debtor in prison. 

 

 

There have been many arguments against the child support system utilizing the outdated
and barbaric debtor prison punishment to put people behind bars just because they
are poor.  Yet, state and federal governments ignore the blatant violations when
officials enforce an expelled reprimand.  Since the unprecedented Turned vs. Rogers
case, which was decided in 2012, states have shown little signs of re-abolishing
debtors’ prisons or ending the employ of the purge process when incarcerating parents
owing child support debt.  [https://youtu.be/gc8NikEnzPA](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-doj-letter-and-child-support-enforcement/\"https://youtu.be/gc8NikEnzPA\")

 

 

There have been nearly over a dozen ‘deadbeat’ parent arrest round-ups across the
country after the DOJ released its report in March.   There don’t seem to be any
changes to the arrest policies on the horizon.  In early April, Harris County, Texas
deputies began arresting debtor parents who allegedly owed approximately $20,000
collectively.  There was no mention of indigency hearings upon or after arrest or
that parents who could not afford to purge the child support amount would be immediately
released from custody. 

 

 

On April 28th of this year, Jefferson County, AR, executed arrest warrants on delinquent
parents, christening the plot ‘Operation Mother’s Day.’  There was no celebration
for the 15 people arrested and detained in order to satisfy a debt.  To add insult
to injury, the police decided to take the operation a step further in order to humiliate
the parents who were being pursued for child support warrants.  Based on an article
written by Ray King of the Pine Bluff Commercial (2016), the sheriff’s department
began posting the photos, names, and amounts owed on the sheriff’s office website
and on social media. 

 

 

There was no information provided that any of those arrested were granted an indigency
hearing in order to determine their financial status.   Arizona is humiliating and
hunting parents, all while violating due process laws.  Finally, months after the
Civil Rights Division, in conjunction with the DOJ, released the letter outlining
the principles that should be applied when citizens are accused of breaking the 
law, more arrests were executed against people accused of owing child support debt.
Andy Mehalshick of the PA Homepage (2016) reported that as of May 1st, arrest warrants
were issued for 191 parents who were in arrears on child support payments. 

 

 

Based on the history of Michigan and the Carell Alexander case, it is not an unreasonable
prediction to state that some of the warrants were undoubtedly issued for non-parents
as well as actual parents accused of owing child support arrears.  Unemployment 
and underemployment are seldom mentioned in articles bashing the alleged ‘deadbeats.’
Instead, there is strong rhetoric concerning the welfare of the child(ren), and 
any talk of the government retaining billions in collection money for Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) families is conveniently omitted.   Unfortunately,
parents are still being incarcerated, and due process rights are being violated.

 

 

Of the recent arrests in Michigan, the judge sent three fathers to jail until they
pay up (Mehalschick, 2016).   Any information concerning an indigency hearing was
either accidentally deleted or did not exist.  The latter is more believable since
180 parents spent time in prison in 2015.  The pattern of unconstitutional behavior
and blatant disregard for the law against parents (some non-parents) owing child
support debt will continue until ‘We the People’ forces the government to comply
with its own rules and guidelines.  The federal and state government officials seem
to thoroughly enjoy shifting the blame onto one another when questioned about the
unconstitutional child support system in America. 

 

 

Once in a while, cases such as Bearden vs. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660,671 (1983) and 
Turner vs. Rogers, 131 S.C. Ct 2507 (2011) shine the spotlight on the illegalities
of programs such as the one enforced by the child support agency.  This year, amidst
accusations of racial bias and inequalities based on financial status governing 
who is being legally punished most often and who is met with the threat of more 
potential financial ruin and debt, the DOJ has stepped in to investigate.  The Department
has found that poor Americans are being deprived of their rights to due process 
as well as having their equal protections, under the law, violated based solely 
on financial status.  It is not a crime to be poor. 

 

 

Incarcerating parents (some non-parents) for owing child support arrears while being
poor without observing their undeniable rights is a serious and inexcusable offense.
Before this letter and these basic constitutional principles are swept under the
proverbial rug, again, people must hold the officials (child support workers, police,
magistrates, judges, etc) accountable when they issue and execute arrest warrants,
suspend licenses, and pass out prison sentences against our most vulnerable citizens.
Contrary to the current atmosphere in the US, a person can be in a lower-income 
bracket and/or considered indigent and still possess excellent parenting skills.
The war against the poor, especially those in debt (child support debt or otherwise),
must be effectively fought against and conquered if we are to follow the Constitution
of the United States.  The sooner this happens, the better both children and parents
will be in our society.

 

 

References:

Council of Economic Advisors Issue Brief. (2015, December). Fines, fees, and bail-
Payments in the criminal justice system that disproportionately impact the poor.
Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.
pdf

DC.gov. (n.d.). Child support services division-Enforcement tools. Retrieved from
cssd.dc.gov/page/enforcement-tools

Grupta, V., & Foster, L. (2016). _Dear colleague letter regarding law enforcement
fees and fines_. Retrieved from U.S Department of Justice, Washington D.C. website:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o_5q2DN9164J:https://www.justice.
gov/crt/file/832461/download+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Jones, V. (2016, March 18). Arrests made in annual coffee county child support roundup–
Story. Retrieved from http://www.dothanfirst.com/news/arrests-made-in-annual-coffee-
county-child-support-roundup

King, R. (2016, April 28). Roundup: Operation mother’s day dubbed success | Pine
bluff commercial. Retrieved from http://pbcommercial.com/news/local/roundup-operation-
mother-s-day-dubbed-success

Mehalshick, A. (2016, May 8). I-Team: Cracking down on deadbeat parents – Story 
| PAHomepage. Retrieved from http://www.pahomepage.com/news/i-team-cracking-down-
on-deadbeat-parents

National Conference of State Legislators. (2014, January 30). License restrictions
for failure to pay child support. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-
services/license-restrictions-for-failure-to-pay-child-support.aspx

Pozo, N. (2015, December 23). Operation deadbeat parents – Story | WAGA. Retrieved
from http://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/61352073-story

Remington, K. (2014, May 13). Ninth district court of appeals upholds lorain child
support case. Retrieved from http://www.morningjournal.com/article/mj/20140513/NEWS/
140519955

Solomon-Fears, C. (2011). _Child support enforcement and driver’s license suspension
policies_ (R41762_gb). Retrieved from Congressional Research Service website: http://
greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/
documents/R41762_gb.pdf

US Legal, Inc. (n.d.). Purge mount law & legal definition. Retrieved from http://
definitions.uslegal.com/p/purge-amount/

Utah Department of Administrative Services Division of Administrative Rules. (2016,
June 1). UT Admin Code R527-260. driver license suspension for failure to pay support.
Retrieved from http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r527/r527-260.htm

Vinson, M., & Turetsky, V. (2009, June 12). State child support pass-through policies.
Retrieved from [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Qqki5S6M7cJ:www.clasp.org/issues/child-support-and-fathers/highlights/state-child-support-pass-through-policies+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-doj-letter-and-child-support-enforcement/\"http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5Qqki5S6M7cJ:www.clasp.org/issues/child-support-and-fathers/highlights/state-child-support-pass-through-policies+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us\")