http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-320

B. The Commissioner may enter into an agreement with the Department of Social Services whereby the Department may suspend or refuse to renew the driver's license of any person upon receipt of notice from the Department of Social Services that the person (i) is delinquent in the payment of child support by ninety days or more or in an amount of $5,000 or more or (ii) has failed to comply with a subpoena, summons or warrant relating to paternity or child support proceedings. A suspension or refusal to renew authorized pursuant to this section shall not be effective until thirty days after service on the delinquent obligor of notice of intent to suspend or refuse to renew. The notice of intent shall be served on the obligor by the Department of Social Services (i) by certified mail, return receipt requested, sent to the obligor's last known addresses as shown in the records of the Department or the Department of Social Services or (ii) pursuant to ' 8.01-296, or (iii) service may be waived by the obligor in accordance with procedures established by the Department of Social Services. The obligor shall be entitled to a judicial hearing if a request for a hearing is made, in writing, to the Department of Social Services within ten days from service of the notice of intent. Upon receipt of the request for a hearing, the Department of Social Services shall petition the court that entered or is enforcing the order, requesting a hearing on the proposed suspension or refusal to renew. The court shall authorize the suspension or refusal to renew only if it finds that the obligor's noncompliance with the child support order was willful. Upon a showing by the Department of Social Services that the obligor is delinquent in the payment of child support by ninety days or more or in an amount of $5,000 or more, the burden of proving that the delinquency was not willful shall rest upon the obligor. The Department shall not suspend or refuse to renew the driver's license until a final determination is made by the court.

C. At any time after service of a notice of intent, the person may petition the juvenile and domestic relations district court in the jurisdiction where he resides for the issuance of a restricted license to be used if the suspension or refusal to renew becomes effective. Upon such petition and a finding of good cause, the court may provide that such person be issued a restricted permit to operate a motor vehicle for any or all of the following purposes: (i) travel to and from his place of employment and for travel during the hours of such person's employment if the operation of a motor vehicle is a necessary incident of such employment; (ii) travel to and from school if such person is a student, upon proper written verification to the court that such person is enrolled in a continuing program of education; (iii) travel to and from visitation with a child of such person; or (iv) such other medically necessary travel as the court deems necessary and proper upon written verification of need by a licensed health professional. A restricted license issued pursuant to this subsection shall not permit any person to operate a commercial motor vehicle as defined in ' 46.2-341.4. The court shall order the surrender of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle, to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of ' 46.2-398, and shall forward to the Commissioner a copy of its order entered pursuant to this subsection. The order shall specifically enumerate the restrictions imposed and contain such information regarding the person to whom such a permit is issued as is reasonably necessary to identify him.

D. The Department shall not renew a driver's license or terminate a license suspension imposed pursuant to this section until it has received from the Department of Social Services a certification that the person has (i) paid the delinquency in full, (ii) reached an agreement with the Department of Social Services to satisfy the delinquency within a period not to exceed ten years and at least one payment, representing at least five percent of the total delinquency or $500, whichever is greater, has been made pursuant to the agreement, or (iii) complied with a subpoena, summons or warrant relating to a paternity or child support proceeding. Certification by the Department of Social Services shall be made by electronic or telephonic communication and shall be made on the same work day that payment required by clause (i) or (ii) is made.

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 05, 2000

Answers

Not sure what you mean by Nazi power, Hokie, but this method of getting deadbeat dads (and moms) to pony up what they owe started in Maine. Department of Human Services up there can go after ANY professional or operating license the delinquent has. Very effective against doctors, for example, and also truck drivers who operate out of their back pockets and have all their property in someone else's name.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 05, 2000.

Well isn't THAT just dang 'helpful' of government. I suppose they need to collect a return on their well oiled welfare system somehow. I wish they'd begin helping EVERYONE who isn't able to collect on a debt owed, or how about stripping business owners of their transportation and ability to work whenever they make a mistake at the expense of the consumer? Why stop there? They could nail law- abiding smokers next for future expenditures (oh sorry, guess they've already done that), well how about homosexuals? Now THERE'S a 'costly' bunch of folks that we ALL pay a price for! They keep yammering about how they want to be treated equally, right? Let's get 'em! Let's strip THEM of their ability to function! It's just a matter of time before lawful gun owners will be made to pay for the cost of crime (oh sorry, guess they've already done that too).

The biggest nightmare of our family courts just happens to be 'blanket policies' or 'one size fits all', not to mention the terrifying COST of participating. People hold the 'title' on small innocent lives just like the car in their garage. Hell, Clinton's trying to get the mob involved now.

It's one huge cluster****ed system that has no visible hope of repair other than erasing and rebuilding it. Welcome to the USSA.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 05, 2000.

I think you will find similar laws in most, if not all our states. I am in VA and very much agree with these laws against deadbeat dads, who by choise, walk away from supporting their children. Ha, I'm a Dad and this is not a one night stand when my children are involued.

-- Tommy Rogers (Been there@Just a Thought.com), February 05, 2000.

Follow the money folks! The tobacco tax brings in far more each year than the "you must pay for the health care costs your product causes" law suits around the country.

A psuedogovernment agency here in Michigan called Friend of the Court collects a precentage off the top of every child support check it gets. They have a vested interest in collecting the money because a large part of there funding comes from this "skimming off the top" practice. The powers invested in the system to collect moneys from one party to give to another party are mind numbing, yet no large scale effort is made to ensure parental rights for the payee. The mother can effectively cut off all contact between the father and child and not have a thing done about it by the same organizations that will throw you in jail for not handing over the money.

This goes to show you what has value to this system. Money and money alone drives it. Not people and not family.

I had know an individual who made in excess of $1000 a week net and was left with no house and about $200 per week after allimoney and child support was taken out. She had a job also and could have easily supported herself and her child without this money.

Everyone probably knows someone who richly deserves what they got and 2 people who got screwed by the same system. The person is irrelevent to the equation and the judges daily mood plays far to great a factor in these procedings

BTW married once for 17 years so far and still going strong

-- Just passin through (nobody@nowhere.com), February 05, 2000.

Mr. Rogers, can you say, con-sti-tu-tion? It is apparent that you have swallowed "to protect the children" hook, line and sinker, bobber breath.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 05, 2000.

Some of the ones who speak out against the children never seem to get is the deadbeats could be in JAIL for child abandoment. By the act of withholding financial support you are abusing a child. You are withholding what you can do and are responsible to do since you parented a child. You are saying to the child and the world "It is ok with me that this child has no food, clothing or shelter".

If I as a single parent with custody tell my child sorry no food today and sorry you have outgrown your shoes but I am not supplying any more and forget heat as I don't want to pay the bill and by the way live outside with the animals as I am not going to allow you in my house because NONE of MY money is going for you kid WE as custodial parents would be in jail.

That is exactly what a deadbeat is saying to his/her child when they refuse to pay child support.

So would you rather just go on to jail or have a slap on the wrist and lose you driver permit? You ARE breaking the LAW - law breakers pay a price.

The child support Enforcement is not just social services but an office of "legal enforcement" in a state. They have the power to "enforce" the law.

Most deadbeats I have known do not want to see their children. I have heard story after story of how the deadbeat said they were going to come for a visit with the child, the child was waiting, waiting and finally hours later the child gets so angry they stomp out in anger that yet again the deadbeat has failed them.

If a parent is deemed safe to be around a child then they should be allowed to visit the child. However, when a parent has show such disregard for the childs welfare and safety by ignoring them with support for the basics of life I too would have reservations on letting the child go off with the deadbeat. The deadbeat has proven they are irresponsible and do not have the best interest of the child at heart so it stands the reason the child will not be cared for properly in the deadbeat sole care.

Be a responsible parent even when the going gets tough and you will be allowed to see your child. Sure I know there are jerk custodial parents out to get revenge but if you prove you are responsible instead of irresponsible then the judge WILL allow you visitation with your child.

Most importantly no matter what happens now--- when the child is older he/she is going to remember what YOU ---did--- by acting responsible or irresponsible what memories do you want your child to have of YOU?

Prove yourself to your child by caring what happens to them in the financal area when they are defenseless and you --will-- have a relationship with your child. :-) even if you hate his mother.

obo

-- Obo (prochildsupport@enforcment.com), February 05, 2000.

Producing the kid is enough...let the "village" raise it.

Hello!!...Hillary.

-- Z (Z@Z.Z), February 05, 2000.

Having the law -enforce the law- is not having the village raise a child any more than it is having the Village take care of you if you have the police come to your home when someone broke in and took your gun collection or silver. The LAW protects property AND children.

The LAW is doing it's job enforcing the LAW. A PARENT has a LEGAL OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT THEIR MINOR CHILD. Everyone who has a mind knows this; now do you plead to be a mindless person?

Maybe you are just selfish and inmature and do not want to accept your responsiblities??? Nevertheless, if you have minor child you are required to support them or else go before the judge and and see if he/she will let you disown the child by law like you have in spirit and act if you do not support them.

OBO

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), February 05, 2000.

Could we please elaborate upon the great number of custodial parents who spend incoming support payments on their various substance abuse problems, flashy transportation or their own wardrobes. How about custodial parents who pick fights and instigate arguements with the visiting parent in front of children they do not want to share? I could go on and on. I could relate my husbands 17 years worth of sleepless nights, tears and frustration with the mother of his child who 'took' his son from him to continue her relationship with his best friend. We never missed a single payment and raised the amount by choice after 10 years *without* the need of a court instructing him to do so. She later sued for a higher amount that nearly lost our home even though their yearly income surpassed ours by nearly $20,000 per year. At one point we substantiated a case of child abuse with the DA's office only to have a Judge order 'family counciling' for them (in the best interest of the child). We discovered she was allowing him to smoke her pot (providing it was in their house only) when he was 12 years old.

OBO relates the favorite sob story used by those who 'collect'. It just isn't that black and white out here in the real world. I hate to burst bubbles, but there aren't as many innocent, helpless, victimized women left as there were 30 years ago, and yet the system continues to favor them with the prejudiced viewpoint that they are the better parent. Robbing someone of their ability to generate income seems an illogical method of collecting a debt. Government CANNOT correct the moral decay of a society unless they promote ethics and morality......which would be another subject for a later time.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 05, 2000.

ALL states have this law, it was mandated by the Feds. They can suspend ANY state license (including your hunting license:-). This was passed, I think in 1996 in the Welfare Reform package.

-- Yep (itstrue@yep.net), February 05, 2000.

Will continue, well said! I see the carnage everyday in my office, which is public mental health. While I'm seeing someone who's girlfriend says he is the father, requires more than half of his check, and then says he can't see the kid cause he is an addict (no evidence, just her hearsay), my colleague sees the mother who "confidentially" just wants his money, and doesn't want him near the kid cause the real dad would get suspicious and stop paying her support. Oh, you guys think women don't draw support from multiple sexual partners for one kid?

And DSS is so overloaded that they don't have the time to evaluate each case, so instead institute "policies".

BTW, as and colleagues are seeing these folks often court ordered into the system for substance abuse evals following accusations

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 05, 2000.

(oops) the office administrator is teaching the secretary how to target married men, seduce them, then "blackmail" them for child support. You want a maaried one cause then you don't have them hangin around, so you are free to repeat the campaign against multiple targets through multiple pregnancies.

Interesting world, huh?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), February 05, 2000.

Thankfully, I have no history of or contact with anyone who uses drugs or has drinking problem etc. Physically abuse, yes, it is still around, it did not just happen 30 years ago. Close to 50% of women are physically abused by a partner. That though is a different subject than child support. Child support is paying the cost of raising and educating a child.

I as a single parent have worn shirts with hole in them so that my child can have what she needs since she is constantly growing and needs her clothes replenished, gads, especially the SHOES and shoes are not cheap. Maybe I just don't hang out with the losers some of you have contact with and if they are the way you say they are then I would not be around them anyway. I don't like any parent who takes away from their child wether it be the non custodial parent withholding the child support or the custodial parent using the money to go out, buy drugs, or loads of clothes for themselves at the expense of the children, my whole check is spent to the benefit of my child and her surroundings, and I get NO child support. I can not understand a parent like that. I love my children and want the best for them not the leftovers.

The women I know have educated themselves and have jobs to support themselves and their children and I think most custodial parents are like this. I think there are cases where neither parent cares for the child and I pity the child.

Custodial parents may sometimes cause a problem but in my case the non custodial parent was always causeing problems. When he use to come around he would do things just to cause trouble (like bringing fireworks and shooting them off in my driveway with dead leaves all around the place that could start a blaze, after I told him twice not to shoot them off here and fireworks are illegal in this state. Bringing a shot gun into my house and I turn around from washing the dishes to see him standing there with the shot gun pointed at me, then he cracks it open and takes out the shell, you know really small stuff but things you have to stop) and it causes a fight because he likes to fight I guess. I don't start fights but I WILL not run from one any longer after having been beated up many times and lived in fear for years. I have learned to be able to live with myself I face the fear of abuse and try to overcome the enemy. Since the divorce I have learned some tactics of fighting I did not know before but thankfully he has not been around in years so I have not had to use them. ---Finally without my knowledge my eight year old while speaking to him by phone one of the few times he called her was asked by him if she wanted to see him at Easter, my child without my knowledge told him "no I do not want you to come around any more as things are peaceful here now and everytime you come there is a big fight so don't come". I found out she said this about four years later when I was berating him by phone for ignoring his child all these years by not coming or calling or even sending a birthday card. From the mouth of babes!! Sad that peace has to be maintained by a child's word. He and others like him should just lay down the anger and let there be peace.

obo

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), February 06, 2000.

The answer to your question is no.

-- okey dokey (okie@dokie.hokie), February 06, 2000.

I will never understand why individuals choose to bring lives into the world with 'jerks' and upon their 'awakening' begin to insist that government, taxpayers and court systems enforce 'change' in their 'poor choices' on their behalf.

We live in a society that accepts immorality, promotes irresponsibility, and expects everyone else to foot the bill. Unfortunately, if anyone points this fact out, they are labeled insensitive and made to feel guilty about the dilemma of the 'innocent children'.

Puhleeeese........is there NO sanity left in the world? Government is tracking delinquent payments in order to *collect* on services rendered and would never invest the time and money *simply* for the sake of those who made poor choices or the helpless young lives they created. Get over it! The thought that our government is attempting to promote responsible behavior in a morally challenged society (THAT THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DISCOURAGE) makes about as much sense as Bill Clinton attending church with a Bible in hand...

BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 07, 2000.

All custodial parents who receive child support payments for minor children should be REQUIRED BY LAW TO SHOW MONTHLY RECEIPTS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THEIR CHILD SUPPORT CHECKS. PERIOD. I am SICK AND TIRED of women spouting off about lack of support as these same women dress their children in garbage cast-offs and dress themselves in designer clothes. Every woman I know who receives child support does this to some extent and it is UNACCEPTABLE. You can defend this system all you want but it is AS FRAUDULENT AS THE PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM IT!

Climbing off the soap box now.

-- Just Curious (jnmpow@flash.net), February 07, 2000.