# A question about child support and the Eighth Amendment. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 7, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584 "2007-11-07T20:46:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/1 "2007-11-07T20:46:29Z")
I was in court a few months ago and the majority of the cases were “Contempt for Failure To Pay Child Support” cases. I was flabbergasted at what I was witnessing the judge do with some of these people. For the most part, the ones who were in contempt were given 30 or so days to pay up what they owed or off to the slammer. But on occasion, the Judge would issue a “bench warrant” for the ones who weren’t there or for ones who owed an excessive amount in back support. Getting to my question, the Judge would issue the warrant and state “No Bond, Mr. States Attorney.” And the States Attorney would blabber something and then the Judge would say, “Purge amount is $13,596.53 with work release for defendant.” Basically, as I understand it, the defendant (or parent, rather) would be locked up with _NO BOND_ and the only way he gets out is to pay his purge of thirteen thousand and some odd dollars. I feel that the person (a parent) having to pay thirteen thousand dollars before they can be released is cruel and unusual. Obviously it’s legal somehow, but my question is _how_ is this legal? Are there some kind of loopholes Judges use to get around the 8th amendment here? How does this NOT violate the 8th Amendment, since I think that there being _no bond for a simple contempt charge_ is excessive and cruel even? Why is a “issuant of a purge” not considered excessive in a child support-contempt hearing? You know, these court systems state that they are only doing “what’s best for the child”, but how do they justify locking up a parent and keeping them from the child be best for the child? ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/2 "2007-11-07T21:01:25Z")
Nothing particularly cruel or unusual about putting someone in jail who has broken the law. Also, the amendment prohibits “excessive bail,” but does not prohibit being held without bail. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/3 "2007-11-07T21:05:24Z")
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Not a lawyer, but if it’s the amount they owe, it isn’t “excessive.” Presumably they had a chance to appeal the monthly amount before it got to $13K. As far as “cruel and unusual,” to my eye this means BOTH cruel and unusual. It can be one or the other, but not both. Otherwise, why not say “…nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.” I’ve always been curious about that… ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/4 "2007-11-07T21:12:05Z")
Not a lawyer, but I’ve heard that there is a great difference between being convicted of a crime and being in contempt of court, with judges having much more leeway in contempt cases. It’s not that the parents have been found guilty of the crime of not paying child support. It’s that the court ordered the child support and not paying it is blowing off the court’s authority. ---
**Author:** ![brad\_d](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@brad\_d](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brad_d)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/5 "2007-11-07T22:00:38Z")
I guess the practical question that comes to mind is how the court imagines the person will come up with the “purge amount” while locked up in jail, unable to work. How do such situations eventually get resolved? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/6 "2007-11-07T22:20:43Z")
[QUOTE=brad\_d] I guess the practical question that comes to mind is how the court imagines the person will come up with the “purge amount” while locked up in jail, unable to work. [/QUOTE] Note the second part of the judge’s order: “Purge amount is $13,596.53 _with work release for defendant_.” So, assuming the deadbeat parent has a job, s/he sits in jail except for the time s/he is at work. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/7 "2007-11-07T23:35:54Z")
Why can people be put in jail for debt in this situation but not others? Citibank can’t put you in jail for owing them money, nor can they do any of the other punitive things that can be done if you owe child support. I realize it’s harming the child, and that does warrant punishment, but a person in jail, now with a criminal record, and presumably with a suspended drivers license, is going to have a MUCH harder time discharging this debt than he would have otherwise. He’s also not going to be able to get a lawyer, which will greatly affect the outcome for him in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/8 "2007-11-07T23:40:58Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] Why can people be put in jail for debt in this situation but not others? [/QUOTE] They aren’t being put in jail for being in debt. They are being put in jail for being in contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of the court’s order to pay child support. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2007, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/9 "2007-11-07T23:47:17Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] They aren’t being put in jail for being in debt. They are being put in jail for being in contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of the court’s order to pay child support. [/QUOTE] Can you be held in contempt of court for not doing something that is impossible for you to do? An order from the court telling me to jump over a tall building is not going to make me superman. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/10 "2007-11-08T01:19:46Z")
[QUOTE=mks57] Can you be held in contempt of court for not doing something that is impossible for you to do? An order from the court telling me to jump over a tall building is not going to make me superman. [/QUOTE] If you become unable to pay your support as ordered, you have the option of going back to the court for a modification of the order. Thus, if your support was based upon your excellent job as a factory worker for Jeep, and you lose that job in a layoff and are forced to work as a cook at McDonald’s, you can get the support order modified to reflect this fact. There are, of course, limits on the issue, and it is fact dependent. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/11 "2007-11-08T01:27:18Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] Why can people be put in jail for debt in this situation but not others? Citibank can’t put you in jail for owing them money, nor can they do any of the other punitive things that can be done if you owe child support. I realize it’s harming the child, and that does warrant punishment, but a person in jail, now with a criminal record, and presumably with a suspended drivers license, is going to have a MUCH harder time discharging this debt than he would have otherwise. He’s also not going to be able to get a lawyer, which will greatly affect the outcome for him in this situation. [/QUOTE] You are right. The last legal debtor’s prison in this country is for child support. And with the new feminist friendly laws, the child support payments have doubled and tripled relative to inflation in the past 20 years. Backdoor alimony the lawyers call it. In a lot of cases, it can leave a man unable to pay for his shithole apartment. It is criminal. However, there are nightmare family court judges out there, but for the most part, you only get jail for completely blowing off the support: No money, no reasons why, not showing up for court, etc. If you document the reasons why you aren’t paying the ordered amount of support, no reasonable judge will toss you in jail.. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/12 "2007-11-08T01:51:21Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] And with the new feminist friendly laws, the child support payments have doubled and tripled relative to inflation in the past 20 years. [/QUOTE] That’s very misleading. Here’s the truth: > [@](#): > > During the 1970s and 1980s, high inflation, increases in non-marital childbearing, declines in the earnings of low-skilled men, and the passage of unilateral divorce laws all converged to exert downward pressure on child support payments. Until the mid 1980s, the federal government and most states treated child support obligations as a private matter and average real payments declined sharply. By the mid 1980s, things had changed. Inflation had returned to normal levels and the federal government had begun to take a more proactive role in enforcing child support obligations. Consequently, although increases in non-marital childbearing and declines in the returns to low education continued to exert downward pressure, child support payments overall begin to rise. This trend has continued throughout the 1990s. [Cite](http://www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/case_lin_mclanahan.pdf?CFID=15602581&CFTOKEN=69089267) Also, > [@](#): > > In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and **did not differ between mothers and fathers** (as support recipients). ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/13 "2007-11-08T02:58:53Z")
[QUOTE=brad\_d] I guess the practical question that comes to mind is how the court imagines the person will come up with the “purge amount” while locked up in jail, unable to work. How do such situations eventually get resolved? [/QUOTE] Well, if they said “purge amount with work release”–then the person could be out of jail during working hours, hence paying off that money that s/he hadn’t paid for support of her/his kids. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/14 "2007-11-08T04:38:50Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > ]They aren’t being put in jail for being in debt. They are being put in jail for being in contempt of court for failing to comply with the terms of the court’s order to pay child support. OK, consider that hair officially split. [QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] If you become unable to pay your support as ordered, you have the option of going back to the court for a modification of the order. [/QUOTE] These are not so easy to get, nor are they automatic. They will not just lower child support because you got a different, lower paying job. You have to prove that you’re not “willfully unemployed or underemployed.” Whatever that means. And good luck with that. Esp. if your ex has a good lawyer and you don’t… because you’re making less or no money. Yeah, it’s debtor’s prison. Sorry, that’s how it seems, and it seems counterproductive for the kid, too, on so many levels. I’m sure someone will be along to explain how it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/15 "2007-11-08T11:33:54Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] These are not so easy to get, nor are they automatic. They will not just lower child support because you got a different, lower paying job. You have to prove that you’re not “willfully unemployed or underemployed.” Whatever that means. And good luck with that. Esp. if your ex has a good lawyer and you don’t… because you’re making less or no money. Yeah, it’s debtor’s prison. Sorry, that’s how it seems, and it seems counterproductive for the kid, too, on so many levels. I’m sure someone will be along to explain how it’s not. [/QUOTE] Look, if you aren’t paying the support you are required to pay, what remedy do YOU suggest? It’s already established that, if you **can’t** pay what was ordered, you can get the order modified (contrast the situation where you willfully choose not to by, for example, changing jobs knowing you have an obligation to support your children). So, say the non-custodial parent owes $13,000 in support they haven’t paid. What, precisely, do you suggest a court do about this willful refusal to do as ordered by the court? If the court ordered you not to talk to the media about a given set of facts regarding something relating to a case, and insisted upon doing so, the court could order you jailed until you agreed not to; is this different? What particularly do you suggest a court do for enforcement? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/16 "2007-11-08T11:45:35Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] IYou know, these court systems state that they are only doing “what’s best for the child”, but how do they justify locking up a parent and keeping them from the child be best for the child? [/QUOTE] Ethically, I see it as cutting losses. The child has a father who values him as worthless. That’s bad enough. If on top of that the child must be exposed to the deadbeat asshole under some sort of part-time mentorship, then the likelihood of lather-rinse-repeat for the next generation is ethically compelling. In other words, if he doesn’t care enough to support the child, then removing him from influencing the child is a tender mercy. ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/17 "2007-11-08T12:21:10Z")
“And with the new feminist friendly laws, the child support payments have doubled and tripled relative to inflation in the past 20 years.” I do not pay or receive CS, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but if CS payments are set at a percentage of income, how have they doubled or tripled relative to inflation, and why would this be conisdered feminist- friendly? Wouldn’t it be more fairly considered to be child-friendly? ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/18 "2007-11-08T13:07:03Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Look, if you aren’t paying the support you are required to pay, what remedy do YOU suggest? [/quote] If you want the man to have money, to pay for his kid, force him to get job counseling or use placement services (already in place for the unemployed). Suspending his driver’s license and giving him a criminal record are not going to make him more likely to pay off that money. > [@](#): > > What, precisely, do you suggest a court do about this willful refusal to do as ordered by the court? How willful is it? If the guy has trouble holding a job, I doubt the reason for it is that he’s just trying to spite his kid. I’m betting he has larger issues too, and other unpaid bills stacking up. Wouldn’t it be better for the kid if he were helped rather than jailed? I don’t know what I’m talking about, I guess. It just seems odd if your goal is to get someone to pay debt, and you take away their means to be employed and incarcerate him. Other debtors cannot do that. They can repossess all your stuff, take your tax returns, but they can’t throw you in jail. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/19 "2007-11-08T13:44:32Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] If the guy has trouble holding a job, I doubt the reason for it is that he’s just trying to spite his kid. [/QUOTE] His reasoning should go the opposite direction. The kid needs support; therefore, the father must work — no matter what reasons or obstacles stand in the way. > [@](#): > > I don’t know what I’m talking about, I guess. It just seems odd if your goal is to get someone to pay debt, and you take away their means to be employed and incarcerate him. Other debtors cannot do that. They can repossess all your stuff, take your tax returns, but they can’t throw you in jail. A child isn’t a car that a debtor can resell as an equity guarantee. The sad thing, it seems to me, is that people often give more thought to the financial burdens and responsibilities of buying a new car than of having a child. ---
**Author:** ![Flipshod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f19dbf/32.png) [@Flipshod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flipshod)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2007, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584/20 "2007-11-08T15:15:25Z")
Jail time seems to separate the “can’t pay” from the “not bothered to pay.” The judge puts them in jail with no work release and keeps them there until they have a concrete plan on how they are going to repay the debt once they get out. At the hearings, the judge asks, “How are you going to pay this back?” to which the prisoner inevitably replies “I can’t right now, cuz I’m locked up.” “Wrong answer, Back you go.” And this is done over and over while all the still-free fathers, who are waiting for their initial hearings watch and learn. At first glance, seeing prisoners explain how they can’t earn any money from jail, it seems like a miscarriage of justice, but once you see it in context, I think it’s the least of many possible evils. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-question-about-child-support-and-the-eighth-amendment/425584.md?page=2)