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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT