Even before the video surfaced of North Charleston police officer Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott, his family and friends had told the press that they didn’t believe the story that Scott had scuffled with police, that he was not a “violent guy.”
But Scott ran from Slager, family members said, because he feared the police. One reason was because Scott, who had four children, owed back child support, something that in South Carolina and across the country can carry jail time. “I believe he didn’t want to go to jail again,” Scott’s father said on “The Today Show” on Wednesday morning.
Though all 50 states have laws on the books that include jail time for non-payment of child support – a penalty that concerns civil libertarians and children’s advocates alike — South Carolina has one of the harshest regimes in the country when it comes to punishing parents who don’t pay. And there’s no evidence that the punitive measures are working: According to federal data, the state is actually below the national average in every single measure of how effectively it is collecting child support funds.
RELATED: Officer fired but many demand fuller accountability
Two surveys of county jails in the South Carolina conducted in the last decade found that at least one out of every eight incarcerated people were there because they had been held in contempt of court for not paying child support. Under South Carolina law, if a family receives public benefits, it takes only five days of a non-custodial parent, usually a father, falling behind on a payment to trigger a civil contempt hearing that could mean ending up in jail for up to a year. And unlike many other states, South Carolina doesn’t allow modifications for how much child support is owed if the parent is incarcerated, whether for owing child support or another reason. The result in states without such modifications is that people can easily leave jail owing $15,000 to $30,000 in child support, in addition to other fees related to their incarceration.
All this, according to a brief filed before the Supreme Court co-written by the former director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, has created “a modern day debtors’ prison for poor noncustodial parents who lack the ability to pay support.”
These penalties are levied in the name of supporting children and families, of cracking down on “deadbeat dads” who create “welfare moms.” But, says Ann Cammett, a professor at CUNY School of Law and an expert on incarcerated parents who owe child support, “We have zero evidence that it works.” She adds, “If the goal of the child support system is to get support for children, parents can’t do that if they’re incarcerated.”
Incarceration doesn’t help a parent spend more time with his or her kids, or make it any easier to find a job after being released. “From our perspective, the important thing is for women and children to get reliable and timely support payments,” sats Joan Entmacher, vice president at the National Women’s Law Center. “And that usually doesn’t involve the threat of horrendous penalties that make it harder to earn a living.”
In South Carolina, the state gets involved unusually early: If the non-custodial parent, usually a dad, is only five days behind on payments, that triggers a civil contempt hearing. “I looked nationally, and I could find only one other jurisdiction that had a time frame like that,” Elizabeth Patterson, the law professor who used to run the state department of social services, told msnbc.
If the custodial parent, usually a mom, receives public benefits, the county is automatically involved, whether the custodial parent wants it or not. Any money collected from the non-custodial payment goes to the state, not the family. That’s generally true nationally, though some states pass on some of the money to the family. South Carolina is not one of them.
“What child support enforcement was intended to do was to transfer the responsibility of child support from the state to non-custodial parents,” says Cammett. She argues that this logic has gotten bipartisan support – conservatives because they thought it would encourage two-parent households with male breadwinners and cut down on welfare payments, liberals because they were worried about single moms being left with all the childrearing.
RELATED: South Carolina officer charged with murder
Patterson says in her experience, those who have the ability to pay usually respond to other coercive means – seizing assets, revoking a driver’s license – and it is only the poor who will end up in jail because at a hearing, the court simply doesn’t believe they can’t pay.









