# How does requiring child support not violate the 13th Amendment's prohibition against **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 25, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889 "2004-04-25T06:35:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/1 "2004-04-25T06:35:26Z")
involunatary servitude? In my Business Law class we dicussed how as a creditor that you **may** force someone into a Chapter Seven BK, but not a Chapter 13. That is because in a chapter 13, courts have held that doing so would violate the Constitutions prohibition against involuntary servitude. Now with child support payments are we not doing the same thing? In fact, I have a friend who is an attorney who was threatened with jail when he became three months behind on his support payments (he lost his job, and could not find another as an attorney for almost a year during which time he earned less than half what he did before) the court said that he “should” be able to earn enough to pay his $1200 per month child support in full (he was only paying $600.00 while working as a Seven Eleven manager thus after six months he became three months delinquent). Thus, many men are paying a debt/obligation on pain of jail. It constitutes a modern day debtors prison situation. Now I do believe that people should pay child support, but I don’t believe that they should face prison for not doing so (other collection measures are fine). IF someone really stubborn like me said, “I’m not paying on principal” how long could they put me away? Could I in essence serve a “life sentence” for willful, and persistent refusal to pay child support? I have often “joked” with my wife that if she left me and took my son that I wouldn’t pay child support on principle alone (in fact I said that my sex life, and the food I ate in prison would probably be an improvement). Now, in reality I probably would pay so as not to harm my son (unless she left me for someone wealthy). ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/2 "2004-04-25T07:22:25Z")
The California Supremes said, in Moss v. Superior Court, (quotes from [here](http://www.jprlawcorp.com/pages/sanction.htm)) > [@](#): > > A parent’s obligation to support a minor child is a social obligation that is no less important then compulsory military service, road building, jury service, or other constitutionally permissible enforced labor. > [@](#): > > When, as here, however, the person claiming involuntary servitude is simply expected to seek and accept employment if available, and is free to choose the type of employment and the employer, and is also free to resign that employment if the conditions are unsatisfactory or to accept other employment, none of the aspects of ‘involuntary servitude’ which would invoke the need to apply a contextual approach to the Thirteenth Amendment analysis is present. There is no ‘servitude’ since the worker is not bound to any particular employer and has no restrictions on his freedom other than the need to comply with a lawful order to support a child. Working to earn money to support a child is not involuntary servitude anymore than working in order to pay taxes. Failure to do either may subject one to civil and criminal penalties, but that compulsion or incentive to labor does not create a condition of involuntary servitude. There’s also some discussion of obligations vs. debts and how the distinction applies to the prohibition on imprisonment for debt on that page. I know you’re not in California, but I’m not aware of anywhere in the country where this is not the case, and the reasoning of the California court was easy to find and understand. You may want to consider having this moved to GD unless ALL you want to know is the current legal reasoning on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Deschain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/73ab20/32.png) [@Roland\_Deschain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Deschain)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/3 "2004-04-25T07:39:59Z")
how long could they be put in prison? Would they face an “infinite” sentence until they agreed to comply with the court order under the doctrine that they “held the keys to the jail” in their hands? This is the perspective of a local deputy prosecutor, and child hood friend with whom I was discussing this subject. I asked him if this wouldn’t imply that someone could serve more time in prison for this than serious crimes like rape and murder. He responded that in his experience no one was that stubborn. This raises the question of what is the longest sentence someone has served for refusing to follow a court order? I know there was a lady who was in prison for awhile for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of Bill Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Cillasi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Cillasi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cillasi)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/4 "2004-04-25T08:24:48Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > involunatary servitude? In my Business Law class we dicussed how as a creditor that you **may** force someone into a Chapter Seven BK, but not a Chapter 13. That is because in a chapter 13, courts have held that doing so would violate the Constitutions prohibition against involuntary servitude. Now with child support payments are we not doing the same thing? In fact, I have a friend who is an attorney who was threatened with jail when he became three months behind on his support payments (he lost his job, and could not find another as an attorney for almost a year during which time he earned less than half what he did before) the court said that he “should” be able to earn enough to pay his $1200 per month child support in full (he was only paying $600.00 while working as a Seven Eleven manager thus after six months he became three months delinquent). Thus, many men are paying a debt/obligation on pain of jail. It constitutes a modern day debtors prison situation. Now I do believe that people should pay child support, but I don’t believe that they should face prison for not doing so (other collection measures are fine). Your friend should have approached the court as soon as he became unemployed in order to have his obligation temporarily reduced. As an attorney, he should have known that. You cannot unilaterally decide to reduce your child support obligation. However, the court can decide that you are working well below your potential and insist you find a better paying job. They do not have to accept you working a $20,000 a year job when you can easily land a $50,000 a year job that utilizes your skills if not your degree (i.e., as an attorney, he could have worked as a paralegal among other things). > [@](#): > > IF someone really stubborn like me said, “I’m not paying on principal” how long could they put me away? Could I in essence serve a “life sentence” for willful, and persistent refusal to pay child support? I have often “joked” with my wife that if she left me and took my son that I wouldn’t pay child support on principle alone (in fact I said that my sex life, and the food I ate in prison would probably be an improvement). If you are working, you will be garnished. They don’t usually put you away for not paying child support unless you are self-employed. They have other ways of getting to you though. Forget about income tax refunds. You won’t get them. Better get it straightened out before your driver’s license is due to be renewed too because some states won’t renew you if you have outstanding support payments due. > [@](#): > > Now, in reality I probably would pay so as not to harm my son (unless she left me for someone wealthy). I wouldn’t care if she married Bill Gates. What makes you think he has the obligation to support your child? ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/5 "2004-04-25T18:42:35Z")
> [@Cillasi](#): > > I wouldn’t care if she married Bill Gates. What makes you think he has the obligation to support your child? I’m pretty sure alimony gets chopped if the former spouse remarries a sufficiently well-off person. Wouldn’t child support work the same way? The whole idea is that the custodial parent had the child with the expectation of the non-custodial parent’s assistance (or at least income), which is now missing because of the divorce. With the replacement of that revenue stream, the non-custodial parent’s obligation is met. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/6 "2004-04-25T19:47:37Z")
> [@Roland Deschain](#): > > I have often “joked” with my wife that if she left me and took my son that I wouldn’t pay child support on principle alone (in fact I said that my sex life, and the food I ate in prison would probably be an improvement). Now, in reality I probably would pay so as not to harm my son (unless she left me for someone wealthy). Wow - you guys have quite the relationship. **Mathochist** - I don’t believe that your assessment is correct - alimony does decrease because the ex-spous is no-longer the spouse, however the non-custodial parent is still the _PARENT_ and their obligation - both morally and financially, extends until their child is 18. The fact that mom now has a posh pad in no way determines if dad should still take care of the children he fathered (particularly if he has contact with them). ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/7 "2004-04-25T19:48:48Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > blah blah blah I should add that if the father has custody, the mother’s obligation is not diminished by his remarrying either. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/8 "2004-04-25T19:53:42Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > Wow - you guys have quite the relationship. > > **Mathochist** - I don’t believe that your assessment is correct - alimony does decrease because the ex-spous is no-longer the spouse, however the non-custodial parent is still the _PARENT_ and their obligation - both morally and financially, extends until their child is 18. The fact that mom now has a posh pad in no way determines if dad should still take care of the children he fathered (particularly if he has contact with them). So why doesn’t Learned Hand come in? (I know, this is my legal hammer) Say I’m married (some miracle occurs and mathematicians become a hot commodity on the dating market). I have a child. My wife leaves me. She remarries Bill Gates. Now, it does Bill Gates less harm to drop the cost of paying that financial obligation than it would me. What amounts to a large fraction of my income is a pittance to him, so why doesn’t Learned Hand say that he should be the one to pay it? ---
**Author:** ![black\_rabbit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@black\_rabbit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/black_rabbit)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/9 "2004-04-25T20:07:35Z")
What **alice** said. In my county, unless the new spouse legally adopts the child, the NCP is still obligated to pay. > [@](#): > > IF someone really stubborn like me said, “I’m not paying on principal” how long could they put me away? Could I in essence serve a “life sentence” for willful, and persistent refusal to pay child support? You can start with 30 days of misdemenor contempt, and go up to 120 days for the fourth offense. More if you skip a hearing. There’s also felony Criminal Nonsupport, which starts at five years probation or six months in **prison** for the first conviction. That’s for 104 months of no voluntary payments, meaning tax intercepts, liens, lump sum seizures (worker’s comp, legal settlements, etc), or a CSEA going in and draining your bank account don’t count. We’ll also suspend your driver’s license after sixty days of no voluntary payments. On preview: **Mathocist** : > [@](#): > > Now, it does Bill Gates less harm to drop the cost of paying that financial obligation than it would me. What amounts to a large fraction of my income is a pittance to him, so why doesn’t Learned Hand say that he should be the one to pay it? Until the court order changes, you are obligated to abide by whatever the terms are. Bill Gates has no legal rights or responsibilites regarding your child; you, as a parent, do. You’re perfectly welcome to file a motion to have the order modified, but until that order is modified, you’re in contempt of the order if you don’t pay. At least that’s how it goes where I work; your locality may be different. -black455 CSE Tech ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-requiring-child-support-not-violate-the-13th-amendments-prohibition-against/241889/10 "2004-04-25T20:51:25Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > What amounts to a large fraction of my income is a pittance to him, so why doesn’t Learned Hand say that he should be the one to pay it? As he’s dead, he’s not likely to say much.