In an effort to be more specific, I will first address the issue of parents who have excellent work histories and child support payment histories but can no longer pay the support ordered due to layoffs.
I have spoken before about potential income. Potential income is based on work history, educational background, qualifications and previous income earned. This can be found under the child support guidelines, Guideline 3.
When a parent has been laid off, he/she will, in most cases, ask for a modification of support. Based on potential income, the judge does not have to grant this reduction. Guideline 3 states, "If the layoff can be reasonably expected to be brief, potential income should be used at or near that parent's historical earning level. If the layoff will be extensive in duration, potential income may be based upon the parent's job capabilities and education if other employment is available."
What this will do is keep the child support amount set at the same level even though the actual income of the support paying parent has decreased or is nonexistent. With the current job market, these parents may not find a job for many months while the amount of back support adds up. This allows the courts to prosecute good, hardworking parents who have never been behind on support before and have gone beyond the court order to take care of their children. Does this sound fair?
I believe that our courts should be helping and protecting these parents rather than prosecuting them. We should be helping these parents to find jobs rather than punishing them for being laid off. One of the enforcement methods I do not agree with is license suspension. How will this help anyone pay support? If judges take a person's driver's license, the chances of that parent finding a job goes down. If the judge takes a person's professional license, this could rule out any chance that parent has of finding a job.
I believe that congress should pass laws that will protect these parents from prosecution. These laws would not help deadbeat parents because part of properly prosecuting or protecting parents comes down to researching work history and child support payment history. The difference is very obvious.
I believe we should do away with potential income for layoff situations. I also think we need to help these parents find work and further their education if they chose to. I believe the government could help these parents by paying a portion of the support obligation when a reduction is not granted. This could be a grant or loan program. Either way it will protect the support paying parent, but only if they are not a deadbeat parent. I also believe that license suspension should not be an enforcement method. I believe that for these parents, a reduction of support should be immediate and mandatory.
Another thing that would prevent this is under IC 31-16-8-1, which basically says modifications have to be 12 months apart. I believe that each case should be handled individually because the same laws that prosecute deadbeats can also prosecute innocent parents caught up in today's bad economy.
You may contact me with your ideas, questions, stories, etc. by email at 79trm@comcast.net or by mail at 4818 S. Scott Rd., Claypool, IN 46510.
