ILNews

Editorial: Deadbeat bill a good idea

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
February 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial


At first glance, the legislation seems like the sort that no one could possibly have an objection to.

The problem is huge. Only 58 percent of child support payments are collected in Indiana. The unpaid child support bill is upwards of $2 billion, which includes 165,000 non-custodial parents who owe $2,000 or more.

That's pathetic.

Senate Bill 163 could help make a dent in that deficit by snagging the gaming winnings of deadbeat parents in Indiana's casinos. Indiana Lawyer wrote a story on this topic in the Jan. 20-Feb. 2, 2010, issue. The legislation was before the House Committee on Public Policy for a vote at Indiana Lawyer deadline.

The bill would bring state law in line with federal law regarding income withholding and participating in family assistance programs. SB 163 also would allow various state agencies or boards to suspend licenses - such as drivers, fishing, hunting, or alcoholic beverage licenses - if child support payments aren't made. This legislation also addresses medical costs in relation to how child support is calculated, which is an ever-growing item of interest that gets at how both parents must pay for a child's health insurance.

But the part of the bill that would require casinos to check their winning patron's names against a state database of parents who owe child support has the gaming industry lobbying against the measure.

Here's how it would work. Let's say Deadbeat Mom owes Custodial Dad $4,500 in unpaid child support for the benefit of their two children. She takes some of the proceeds from her first paycheck in ages to one of our state's riverboat casinos for a night of high rolling and she hits it big, to the tune of $2,000. While she's whooping and hollering about her payday, the casino will do a check of her name against the state's database of deadbeat parents, and finding Deadbeat Mom's name there, will redirect the winnings to her two children.

It's a great scenario from the point of of view of Department of Child Services Director James Payne, a former juvenile court judge. He said during a hearing on the legislation last month that banks are currently required to perform similar checks for deadbeat parents, and that insurance companies do so now on a voluntary basis when handling insurance award payouts.

But the Casino Association of Indiana believes it's being picked on with the proposal, arguing that the database checks could cause a two-minute delay on casino floors with every win. That could add up to 13,000 work-hours every year. CAI Director Mike Smith believes the checks would cause grumbling on the casino floors and cause gamblers who might be snagged by the database to go outside Indiana for their fun.

"With our tax burdens, we are paying our fair share to have the privilege of operating in Indiana," Smith told the committee last month. "We just ask not to be additionally burdened."

He's right about the tax portion of his argument. Indiana is second only to Nevada in the amount of tax revenue it earns from gaming, taking in $838.2 million in 2008. The figures for 2009 aren't currently available.

Casinos already are required to generate tax forms for people who win more than $1,200 on slot machines and more than $600 from certain types of other gambling. Smith thinks it makes more sense to send that information not only to the Indiana Department of Revenue but also the DCS for review for child support collections.

The only problem with that idea is the money will surely already have been spent by the time the state could learn it's available to collect.

Most lawmakers like the bill, while one voted against it because he thought it didn't go far enough and should involve other industries.

We believe this is one of those ideas that's just too good to pass up. A state that puts up with collecting only 58 percent of its court-ordered child support payments ought to do all it can to do better by its children.*

 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT