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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT