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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT