ILNews

Casino winnings pay child support

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Indiana’s casinos have blocked payouts to hundreds of state gamblers who are behind on their child support payments during the past year.

The Indiana General Assembly mandated an intercept program in 2010, and the state’s 13 casinos began implementing it late last year. The state provides the casinos a list of parents who are at least $2,000 or three months delinquent in their child support payments, and the casinos are then required to check the names of gamblers who win $1,200 or more against the delinquent list and withhold money from those listed. Those winnings are turned over to the Indiana Department of Child Services, which holds the money for 10 days to allow for possible appeals before sending it to families.

The DCS reports that since October, when the first casino implemented the new program, operators have withheld about $650,000 from 376 men and women, some on more than one occasion. Sixteen gamblers have actually paid off their child support debts with their forfeited jackpots, according to DCS Deputy Director Cynthia Longest.

Data shows that jackpots have been withheld from 19 people who’d never made even one of their court-ordered child support payments; 35 people have had all or part of their winnings intercepted more than once, and one person lost four jackpots as a result. The highest single amount withheld and turned over to DCS was $18,000. Most of the intercepts have occurred at Hoosier Park Racing & Casino in Anderson and Indiana Live in Shelbyville, which serve the largest number of Indiana residents.

State and casino officials estimate the program might eventually result in over $1 million annually in intercepted payments, though some speculate that amount could decrease as more people become aware of the program and try to sidestep it.

Rehearing "Kids may hit the jackpot" IL Jan. 20 -Feb. 2, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT