I just learned one of my young male neighbors, presently unemployed, was recently jailed and is now serving 11/29 for non-payment of child-support. I guess I'm one of the few ones who scratch my head and could never understand the benefits to the child or children and society as a whole for locking someone up for failure to pay child-support, especially if they're not in a position to pay due to job loss. With today's high unemployment rates, for sure there's going to be even more non-custodial parents falling behind in payments.

How does it benefit the child, society, the taxpayer, and even the individual arrested and jailed if he or she can't afford to pay?

Don't think I'm someone who hasn't been there, experienced that. I've been a divorced mom too, struggling to provide for two young children on my own. However, I knew at the time their father was not in a position to pay. Yes, we went without a lot. I missed important medical appointments so my daughter could study classical music from the time she was seven or eight years of age. I learned to make meals on ten dollars or less. Shop at Goodwill. My children wore their cousins' hand-me-downs.

But because of our struggles they learned to appreciate the little things and grew up to be well-rounded individuals. They're not flashy and still prefer to shop at resale shops and are great bargain hunters.

Getting back to my young neighbor - he's a good father who spent lots of time with his daughter, often keeping her for days or even weeks at a time. Now, she won't be seeing her father for another six months or so. Even out of work, he still did small things for her. He just wasn't able to keep up with regular child-support payments.

Who does it help to jail someone for non-payment of child-support or revoke their license? Whoever thought up those two as punishment must have really been asleep at the wheel.

I look at it this way, if the mother applied for or was receiving some kind of public assistance for the child, now you have two or more burdens on the taxpayer. One sitting and wasting away in jail, the child or children still going without. If the individual had some small job, even minimum wage, but still fell behind in payments, that job isn't going to be waiting on him or her six months later when they're released.

Not only that, with a lapse in employment or a prison or jail record, it becomes even more difficult for that person to find a job. And, with a jail or prison record, that individual's offspring can be affected later in life when applying for certain jobs that might require a security clearance, depending upon the level of security.

Then there's the revoked license issue, which just sets the person up for another chance of being arrested if they take a chance and drive without a license, which many will do at some point, creating a revolving door in the criminal justice system. Let's be honest, if the individual can't drive to a job because they've lost their driving privileges, how are they to get to work? Not everyone is lucky enough to have a 9-5 job, and buses don't run on a 24/7 schedule.

The "experts" really need to take time to think about these laws before they sign them into law. In the long term, they serve no one, and only create more problems than solutions. So, now we have another kid who at least had a father who came around and spent time with her, sitting and wasting away in prison for something that should never have been a crime in the first place. There's a difference between the inability VS the ability to pay.

Hopefully, the "experts" will rethink these laws that are really crippling American society and serve no true purpose, except for prison stockholders.

Brenda Manghane~Washington

* * *

Brenda's letter brings to light the unfortunate fact that a law designed to keep dead beats in line sometimes impacts good people who have fallen on hard times. It is sad that no discernment is in place to allow leniency for those who might have held a job several months only to be laid off or that are actively seeking employment but unable to in the current economic climate. We are often obliged with a letter from a judge regarding legal matters and concerns; it would be interesting if one could chime in on this one.

Michael Rhudy

* * *

Brenda,

Although you and I seem to be exact opposites in a lot of our philosophies, I totally agree with you on this one.

Brian Foley

* * *

I do not believe our judges incarcerate or revoke licenses of parents who are able to show a good faith attempt to financially support their children. Stiff laws are needed to get the attention of those people who do not naturally accept responsibility or respond to authority.

Leniency in child support laws is not the answer. I think our judges know that a jail inmate is in no position to pay support while in jail, and I have never known of a case in which the parent was not given multiple chances to show an honest effort to pay support before facing such a consequence. I do not believe our judges are unaware that jobs have become harder to find. I do not believe they are unaware that revoking state licenses places those former license-holders in a difficult position. That is precisely the point.

Our judges need powerful leverage in certain cases, and I believe it would be unusual for a judge to use those options except as a last resort. I believe the story of a responsible dad, incarcerated just because he has fallen upon hard times, is a rare case in itself, and for the penalty to be a sentence of 11/29 seems extremely unusual. Perhaps the judge has information not available to the neighbor?

If we take away the current legal provisions designed to collect child support from those who choose not to pay, then just what alternatives should be available to our judges in order to help the children?

Karen Walden Simpson