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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT