In one case, a 39 year Iraqi war vet living in Georgia, with a 10+ year history of regular payments fell behind when he lost his job 2 years ago.  Although now working, the judge would not agree to any payment arrangement and put the delinquent father in jail for 3 months.

Several of these recently incarcerated fathers have filed a class action lawsuit demanding that the state of Georgia provide legal counsel in cases where jail is a possible outcome.

Recently the United States Supreme Court ruled that poor parents are not entitled to court appointed lawyers when facing jail for non-payment of child support so long as state law contains “substantial procedural safeguards” to ensure that those without means to pay are not locked up.

The plaintiffs in the Georgia class action suit are contending that Georgia law does not provide those procedural safeguards.

What do you think?   I regularly hear from custodial parents who write to say that the non-custodial parent refuses to work or works for cash.  At the same time, it seems counterproductive to put a parent like the Iraqi war vet in jail, thereby causing him to lose his new job, putting him even further behind.

Georgia and other states, of course, have no money, and they will no doubt argue to the courts that they should not be burdened with the cost of court appointed lawyers for child support defendants.

What is a good solution to this type of situation?

4 out of 10 people who have lost their job remain unemployed for six months or more. This increase in long-term unemployment makes the situation worse. Also, men have been disproportionately laid off due to the recession’s impact on traditionally male-dominated industries like manufacturing and construction. Because nearly 83 percent of custodial parents are women, men are left to pay most child support obligations.

In Highland County, Ohio, requests for support modifications nearly doubled last year as the county’s unemployment rate rose to over 16 percent when a major area employer left. According to Christine Blevins, a supervisor for the county child support enforcement agency, the nature of the requested changes also shifted. While in past years most requests came from custodial parents seeking increases, in 2009 almost all the requests came from noncustodial parents who lost their jobs and ask for payment reductions.

As people whose payments are now based on unemployment will soon lose those benefits, Blevins expects to see another wave of downward adjustments. Payments are also no longer calculated assuming that a parent could at least find a full time, minimum-wage job, as that is no longer realistic in this economy. The situation puts everyone involved in a difficult position, as the non-custodial parents struggle to pay child support and the children in need have a harder time getting the support they need.

I recommend that if your financial situation changes and you can’t meet your support payments, call your attorney or the state child support agency to start the review process. It can take months for a reduction to be granted, especially in communities that have cut back on staffing child support offices. If you cut payments without official approval, it may lead to legal problems and possibly even an arrest.

The legislation, which is being considered by the Judiciary Committee of the state Senate, would withhold casino jackpot winnings from parents who are behind on their child support payments. For example, winners of slot-machine winnings of $1,200 or more would be checked for delinquent child support when they try and cash their prize.

Over 165,000 non-custodial parents each owe more than $2,000 in child support, which equals over $2 billion in child support delinquencies, according to the state Department of Child Services, which is pushing the legislation. In a state where only 58 percent of child support payments are collected, the proposed bill is gaining support.

Stuart Showalter, of Indiana Shared Parenting, does not believe that parents who are having difficulty paying child support should be gambling with their money. Indiana Department of Child Services Spokesperson Ann Housworth believes that the custodial parents that are owed money, and their children, could benefit from any money collected with the proposed legislation.

Obviously, there are two sides to the issue. Indiana casinos are not in favor of the bill and worry that the legislation will cause too much of a delay on casino floors while names of big winners are checked for delinquent child support. According to Mike Smith, President of the Casino Association of Indiana, the delay will customers since casinos are fast-paced environments and winners want to be paid quickly. Smith also argues that because 70% of business comes from out of state, he’s not sure how successful the collections would be.

Regarding an argument that the casinos should not have to do the government’s dirty work to collect child support, an unsympathetic Indiana Sen. Scott Schneider (Indianapolis) says the state created the gambling industry, and casinos need to play by its rules.